Marloth Park Management Plan. - Nkomazi Local Municipality

Ecological Associates 

Environmental Consultants & 

Wildlife Specialists 

P O Box 11644 

Hatfield 

South Africa 

0028 

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION 

OF MARLOTH PARK, WITH MANAGEMENT 

Tel: +27 12 420 2828 

Cell: +27 83 400 7031 

Email: ben@wildlife.up.ac.za 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE SUSTAINABLE 

UTILISATION AND INTEGRATION OF ALL 

NKOMAZI Local Municipality 

Private Bag X101 

Malelane 

1320 

CONSTITUENTS 

Prepared by 

Ben Orban (Pri. Sci. Nat.) 

© Ecological Associates 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................... iv 

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... v 

LIST OF APPENDICES............................................................................................................ vi 

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 1 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 6 

STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................. 7 

SIZE.............................................................................................................................................. 7 

INFRASTRUCTURE..................................................................................................................7 

GEOMORPHOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 10 

GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 10 

SOILS ......................................................................................................................................... 15 

CLIMATE.................................................................................................................................. 19 

Radiation .................................................................................................................................... 19 

Temperature .............................................................................................................................. 21 

Rainfall ....................................................................................................................................... 21 

Frost............................................................................................................................................ 23 

Wind ........................................................................................................................................... 23 

VEGETATION.......................................................................................................................... 23 

VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION ON MARLOTH PARK 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 24 

METHOD .................................................................................................................................. 26 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................ 28 

VELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND THE CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL 

GRAZING CAPACITY 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 34 

Veld condition assessment ........................................................................................................ 34 

Grazing capacity........................................................................................................................ 36 

OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................ 37 

METHOD................................................................................................................................... 37 


© Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park i

THE ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE BROWSE AND CALCULATION OF 

BROWSING CAPACITY 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 46 

OBJECTIVE.............................................................................................................................. 47 

METHOD................................................................................................................................... 47 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 50 

ESTIMATION OF HERBACEOUS BIOMASS PRODUCTION 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 54 

OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................ 54 

METHOD................................................................................................................................... 55 


GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF MARLOTH PARK 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 58 

OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................... 59 

STOCKING RATES ................................................................................................................. 60 

SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 64 

STOCKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MARLOTH PARK ........................................ 74 

SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDING.............................................................................................. 81 

TYPES OF SUPPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................ 82 

Recommendations for Marloth Park....................................................................................... 85 

DISEASE AND PARASITE CONTROL................................................................................ 87 

VELD MANAGEMENT ON MARLOTH PARK ................................................................. 89 

ENDANGERED, VULNERABLE AND RARE PLANT MANAGEMENT ....................... 89 

NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEEDS..................................................................................... 92 

UNDESIRABLE PLANT MANAGEMENT........................................................................... 93 

BUSH ENCROACHMENT...................................................................................................... 96 

Recommendations for Marloth Park....................................................................................... 99 

VELD RECLAMATION ........................................................................................................ 100 

Recommendations for Marloth Park..................................................................................... 102 

FIRE REGIME........................................................................................................................ 103 


SOIL EROSION ...................................................................................................................... 108 


© Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park ii

GENERAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MARLOTH PARK 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 111 

OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................................... 111 

WATER PROVISION ............................................................................................................ 111 


FENCELINE SPECIFICATIONS......................................................................................... 117 


ROADS ..................................................................................................................................... 118 


ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING......................................................... 119 


© Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park iii

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Location of the Marloth Park study area ................................................................. 8 

Figure 2: Township design and layout on Marloth Park......................................................... 9 

Figure 3: Topography of the Marloth Park study area ......................................................... 11 

Figure 4: Geology of the Marloth Park study area ................................................................ 12 

Figure 5: Geological formations of the Marloth Park study area......................................... 13 

Figure 6: Soil depth of the Marloth Park study area ............................................................. 16 

Figure 7: Land Types of the Marloth Park study area .......................................................... 18 

Figure 8: Land use in the Marloth Park study area............................................................... 20 

Figure 9: A climate diagram for the Marloth Park area ....................................................... 22 

Figure 10: Plant communities of the Marloth Park study area............................................. 29 

Figure 11: Schematised illustration of an ideal tree and the parameters used to 

calculate browse availability..................................................................................................... 48 

Figure 12: Sketch of Cyphostemma/Cissus species found on Marloth Park ......................... 90 

Figure 13: Design of a shallow, rectangular waterhole sunk into the ground ................... 115 

Figure 14: Cross section design of a shallow, round waterhole sunk into the ground ...... 116 

Figure 15: Location of the monitoring sites on Marloth Park............................................. 122 

© Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park iv

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Frequency occurrence of grass species in the various monitoring sites on 

Marloth Park ............................................................................................................................. 40 

Table 2: Contribution of ecological categories and veld condition scores, of the 

various monitoring sites on Marloth Park .............................................................................. 41 

Table 3: Grazing capacities for the various plant communities if all open areas 

on Marloth Park is considered suitable habitat for game...................................................... 44 

Table 4: Grazing capacities for the various plant communities if landscaped gardens 

are excluded from potentially suitable habitat for game ....................................................... 44 

Table 5: Grazing capacities for the various plant communities if only parkland and 

road reserves are considered suitable habitat for game......................................................... 44 

Table 6: Browsing capacities for the various plant communities if all open areas 

on Marloth Park is considered suitable habitat for game...................................................... 52 

Table 7: Browsing capacities for the various plant communities if landscaped gardens 

are excluded from potentially suitable habitat for game ....................................................... 52 

Table 8: Browsing capacities for the various plant communities if only parkland and 

road reserves are considered suitable habitat for game......................................................... 52 

Table 9: The current stocking densities, based on the September 2005 game count, if 

all open areas on Marloth Park is accepted as potentially suitable habitat for game......... 61 

Figure 10: The current stocking densities, based on the September 2005 game count, if 

landscaped gardens are excluded from potentially available habitat areas 

on Marloth Park ........................................................................................................................ 62 

Figure 11: The current stocking densities, based on the September 2005 game count, if 

only parkland and road reserves are accepted as potentially available habitat areas 

on Marloth Park ........................................................................................................................ 63 

Table 12: The potential stocking densities if all open areas on Marloth Park is 

accepted as suitable habitat for game...................................................................................... 76 

Table 13: The potential stocking densities if landscaped gardens are excluded from 

available habitat areas on Marloth Park................................................................................. 77 

Table 14: The potential stocking densities if only parklands and road reserves are 

accepted as available habitat areas on Marloth Park ............................................................ 78 

Table 15: The recommended stocking densities of animals on Marloth Park..................... 80 

© Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park v

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix 1: A list of tree species identified on Marloth Park ............................................ 123 

Appendix 2: A list of grass species identified on Marloth Park .......................................... 125 

Appendix 3: A list of forbs species identified on Marloth Park .......................................... 127 

Appendix 4: Alien invaders found on Marloth park............................................................ 131 

Appendix 5: Frequency occurrence of grass species on each monitoring site ................... 133 

Appendix 6: Photographs of each vegetation monitoring site on Marloth Park ............... 148 

© Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park vi

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF MARLOTH PARK, 

WITH MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE SUSTAINABLE 

UTILISATION AND INTEGRATION OF ALL CONSTITUENTS 

SUMMARY 

Marloth Park resembles a horseshoe formation, nestled in a bend of the Crocodile River that 

acts as a buffer zone around the central Lionspruit Game Reserve. The study area consists of 

subsections of the farm Tenbosch 162 JU and extends over 1627 ha of tropical bush and 

savanna type bushveld. Marloth Park consists of a development zone and a conservation zone; 

where the development zone of 1099 ha, consists of 6.9 ha utilised as municipal areas, 48 ha 

as road surfaces and 132 ha as road reserves. The remaining portion has been divided into 

approximately 4500 plots for residential development. The residential development portion 

currently has a development footprint of 28 ha, and landscaped gardens that constitute 289 ha. 

The conservation zone consist of the remaining 528 ha, remnants of the natural vegetation 

that is scattered throughout the area. 

Vegetation analysis identified five distinct plant communities, with sub-communities and 

variations that correspond to the initial vegetation analysis conducted on Lionspruit Game 

Reserve. The classification of the two additional plant communities is based on geological 

influence on the Spirostachys africana – Balanites maughamii Low bushland, and historic 

land-use practice on the Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus Low bushland. The 

veld condition in all plant communities is moderate to good, with exception of the 

Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus Low bushland community that is considered 

poor. The tree densities of the various plant communities are generally within acceptable 

range with an average of 1500 trees per hectare. However, the tree density in the 

Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus Low bushland community again exceeds the 

recommended threshold of 1700 trees per hectare. In this plant community, it is apparent from 

the woody vegetation analysis that tree density is not the limiting factor in available leaf 

biomass production, but rather tree height. As much of the woody vegetation is mature sickle 

bush Dichrostachys cinerea it can only be deduced that the leaf biomass produced are now 

out of reach of the browsing animal species. The herbaceous biomass production follows the 

same trend, indicating that the Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus Low bushland 

community cannot sustain a fire. 

The current stocking rate is based on the latest game counts conducted during September 

2005 and the grazing and browsing capacities calculated for Marloth Park. 

© Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park 1

Three different scenarios are analysed; the first is based on the assumption that the whole of 

Marloth Park, excluding the current development footprint and actual road surfaces, is 

suitable for utilisation. In this scenario only 38.15 percent of the ecological grazing capacity is 

being utilised, but the ecological browse capacity is exceeded by 25.44 percent. The common 

impala Aepyceros melampus melampus is the dominating contributor at 95.95 percent of the 

ecological browse capacity. In the second scenario the current building footprints, actual road 

surfaces and landscaped gardens are subtracted from the available area. In this scenario only 

46.96 percent of the ecological grazing capacity is being used, but the ecological browse 

capacity is exceeded by 54.07 percent. In the third scenario only the parkland and current road 

reserves are available for utilisation. In this scenario the grazer stocking-rate of 89.21 percent 

is approaching the ecological grazing capacity. However, the ecological browse capacity is 

exceeded by 195.29 percent. 

If it is considered that stocking densities for Burchell’s zebra Equus burchelli should not 

exceed four animals per 100 ha of suitable habitat, blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus 

seven animals per 100 ha, common impala Aepyceros melampus melampus 12 animals per 

100 ha, and kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros three animals per 100 ha, the following stocking 

options can be applied to the different stocking scenarios without exceeding the ecological 

capacities. In the first scenario, blue wildebeest can be increased to 108 individuals and kudu 

to 46 individuals. However, impala and giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis should be reduced to 

185 and seven individuals, respectively. In the second scenario, blue wildebeest can be 

increased to 88 individuals and kudu to 38 individuals. However, zebra, impala and giraffe 

should be reduced to 50, 150 and six individuals, respectively. In the third scenario, only blue 

wildebeest can be increased to 46 individuals. Zebra, impala and kudu and giraffe should be 

reduced to 26, 79, 20 and four individuals, respectively. Implementing these guidelines will 

result in the under-utilisation of natural resources. Improving this stocking deficit is hampered 

by suitable animal species that can be introduced to Marloth Park. However, tsessebe 

Damaliscus lunatus lunatus and waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus can be introduced as 

minimum viable populations and allowed to increase naturally. Although eland Tragelaphus 

oryx can also be introduced, it is recommended that this option not be applied before some 

sickle bush control and reclamation measures has not been successfully implemented on 

Marloth Park. Although the reduction in impala numbers is considered compulsory, the 

giraffe numbers can be stocked at a higher level, however, stocking density should never 

exceed 12 individuals. An alternative option that can be used to increase stocking densities is 

by supplementary feeding of animals; however, this practice is not an ecologically viable 

proposition. 


Supplementary feed must be placed in containers, as the leaching of salt and other nutrients 

into the soil will result in permanent sterilisation. Protein and energy lick blocks may be made 

available from May to September. Salt licks may be made available throughout the year. 

Anthelminthic or deworming lick blocks may be supplied in July only. Although lick blocks 

can be mixed locally, it is recommended that a more reliable composition be purchased from a 

reputable company. Feeding game cubes to animals must be seen as supplementation only as 

this feed is not a constant resource and cannot substitute the natural ingestion of roughage. No 

supplementary feed must be supplied in the Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus 

Low bushland areas. 

At least one rare and potentially endangered plant is currently found on Marloth Park. If this 

plant is encountered on a development site, it is recommended that it be protected. Where the 

development footprint cannot be changed, a reputable botanist should be contacted to remove 

and transplant the Cyphostemma sp. Another plant of note is the summer impala lily Adenium 

swazicum that is restricted in its distribution on Marloth Park. The same guidelines for 

protection are advocated. 

A number of invasive and noxious weeds occur throughout Marloth Park. It is recommended 

that all plants declared as undesirable by law be eradicated. However, it must be emphasized 

that success will not be achieved without co-operation of the property owners, where 

education and understanding of the implications is considered crucial, as many of these plants 

are still being planted as garden subjects. The presence of sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea 

is the only species currently exhibiting encroaching properties on Marloth Park, and although 

not classified as an alien plant species, it is invasive and recommended that the number of 

individuals be reduced in an attempt to decrease the localized densities. The liase fair 

approach to this problem in the Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus Low bushland 

areas has resulted in these trees becoming of age, thus exceeding the maximum browse high 

of 2.0 m, with effect that these trees have little to no browsing value. It is recommended that a 

combination of mechanical and chemical treatment of the sickle bush be initiated, where all 

trees rooted within a circumference of 5 m of each other, irrespective of age or size, are 

removed. To achieve effective control of the sickle bush infestations, initial, follow-up and 

maintenance treatments must be implemented. 


Ecosystems disturbed by clearing operations will be susceptible to re-invasion, usually due to 

the residual weed-seed bank that remains viable for a number of years. Therefore, where time, 

money and effort are spent on environmental weed control, commitment to rehabilitating and 

managing these areas correctly is essential. It is recommended that rehabilitation measures be 

implemented in conjunction with bush control applications, where branches from cut sickle 

bush be used in brush packing these areas. However, compacted soils should be treated to 

improve water infiltration and reseeded before brush packing. 

Due to the risks involved, the use of fire as a management tool is not recommended, as its 

application is strife with complications and potential high risks. An alternative method of 

simulating the effect of non-selective or bulk grazers on the vegetation structure is preferred. 

This can be achieved by manual manipulation of the herbaceous layer as part of the 

management plan for Marloth Park. It is recommended that the herbaceous biomass 

production be measured annually and priority areas identified that require a slashing 

programme. Property owners must be convinced of the necessity of removing this excess 

material, not only for the health of the vegetation but to reduce the risk of natural or 

accidental fires that can damage or destroy their residence. 

The availability of water on Marloth Park is not a limiting factor as many owners have 

constructed their own little waterholes on their properties. This effectively gives all wildlife 

access to water without much competition, reducing the concentration of large animal groups 

around waterholes and limiting the formation of piospheres. The disadvantage of this practice 

is the uniformed utilisation of the natural resources, without any areas with reduced impact. It 

is recommended that the owner’s co-operation be obtained in managing water access to 

animals, through education and guidance. All waterhole locations must then be recorded, and 

then opened or closed on a rotational basis to induce some form of rotational resting. It is 

recommended that all waterholes in the degraded Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus 

berteronianus Low bushland plant communities be closed, until after successful rehabilitation 

of these areas. 

As property owners generally do not have the equipment, labour or time to implement many 

of these recommendations, it is recommended that an independent consultant be contracted to 

measure the biomass production annually and identify those areas that require slashing. This 

can be combined with the sickle bush control programme, scarification of the compacted soil 

surface, reseeding and brush packing of the areas. Furthermore, eradication of other 

undesirable plant species can also be achieved during the same time. 


The current road infrastructure is well developed and maintained by the municipality, and 

although the fencing is also in relatively good condition, it apparently suffers from poor 

maintenance, thus loosing much of its functionality. Access control is also a matter of 

concern, as with the current lack of control through Marloth Park, the safety of the animals 

cannot be ensured. Uncontrolled poaching can affect population dynamics and reduce 

productivity of the wildlife populations on Marloth Park. 

Despite implementing all the recommendations, it must be remembered that this is a dynamic 

system that constantly changes due to fluctuating environmental influences, and that success 

can only be achieved by applying adaptive management principles. These changes can be 

measured by surveying the vegetation at the monitoring points, distributed throughout 

Marloth Park, and comparing with the baseline data gathered during this study. Adjustments 

to the stocking rates can then be applied based on these findings. By implementing these 

recommendations it can be assured that Marloth Park remain a viable wildlife sanctuary for 

future generations. 


INTRODUCTION 

Although only a few vestiges remained for wildlife in South Africa by 1960, this country 

produced some of the most venerated conservationist in history. It is thanks to these 

remarkable men’s visions that the true resource value of our wildlife came to its full potential. 

Today it is accepted fact that wildlife indigenous to southern Africa is better adapted to the 

harsh conditions than the domestic stock introduced from Europe, and that wildlife can utilise 

the available plant biomass more efficiently, and is less to prone to diseases. Currently more 

private land is being conserved and protected in South Africa than in any other African 

country. The wildlife industry had blossomed since 1960 to over 5000 game ranches, with an 

additional 4000 mixed game and livestock farms, covering some 13 percent of the country’s 

total surface area. And this trend is still growing. With this development came an increase in 

responsibility to manage these resources sustainably, especially where competition for land is 

placing additional pressure on the natural environment. Management based on sound 

ecological principles is a prerequisite in ensuring viability and success of integrating all 

constituents. Lack of expertise mostly resulting form lack of experience, considering wildlife 

ranching being a relatively young industry, is often the main cause of failure. This is where 

professional management become necessary. 

A well-developed management plan is increasingly important in wildlife ranches, because 

human interference is inhibiting natural ecosystem equilibrium and processes. The need for 

active management increases when animals are kept in areas smaller than those occurring 

under natural conditions. Definite objectives need to be defined and the extent of human 

interference within the natural system determined, to formulate a functional management plan 

based on accepted ecological principles, such as active adapted management. If the focus of 

the enterprise lies on eco-tourism, the least disturbance possible of the ecosystem is sought 

after. If emphasizing wildlife ranching for venison on the other hand, a balance between high 

production rates and deterioration of the veld condition is desirable. All conservation- 

orientated areas need some form of management, as total degradation and veld deterioration 

will invariably be the result of sustained utilisation and uncontrolled animal stocking rates. 

With a sound wildlife management plan, veld and wildlife can be exploited without exceeding 

the ecological sustainability, ensuring economic viability and long-term conservation of the 

natural resources. 


STUDY AREA 

Marloth Park is located in the Mpumalanga province of South Africa, about 20 km northwest 

of Komatipoort, between latitudes 25°15´ and 25° 30´ south and longitudes 31° 45´ and 31° 

60´ east (grid reference 2532 AC). The property is situated in a horseshoe bend formed by the 

Crocodile River that forms a natural boundary with the Kruger National Park. Centre to this 

development is the Lionspruit Game Reserve, a natural area wedged in the development zone. 

The reserve fence acts as inner periphery for the southern, western and eastern boundaries. 

Olifants Drive, with a tarred surface, traverse the property giving access from Hectorspruit 

and Komatipoort, respectively. Access through Marloth Park is not restricted or controlled. 

SIZE 

The property consists of subsections of the farm Tenbosch 162 JU and extends over 3049 ha 

of tropical bush and savanna type bushveld. The Lionspruit Game Reserve is approximately 

1422 ha in size, with the Marloth Park peripheral development zone (Figure 1) being 

approximately 1627 ha. Of the development zone, 528 ha are retained as parkland habitat for 

wild animals. 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Marloth Park is a township development with basic infrastructure such as shops, restaurants, 

petrol filling station and other recreational facilities. The township development consists of 

approximately 4500 plots (Figure 2), each with access to water and electricity. Of the 1627 

ha, 528 ha is parkland excluded from development and retained as habitat for wildlife. The 

housing development currently only has a footprint of 28 ha; however, many property owners 

landscape gardens, some to such extend that little of the natural habitat remain. It is estimated 

that at least 300 ha has been modified to such extend that the habitat is considered unsuitable 

for wildlife. Although these areas can act as reserves during periods of feeding stress, many 

owners actively discourage wildlife from entering their property boundaries. Approximately 

180 ha of Marloth Park are classified as road reserves along a 96 km road network. However, 

much of these road reserves are used by wildlife for feeding, nesting and resting habitat. Only 

an estimated 40 ha consist of road surface areas with no suitable wildlife habitat. Within this 

development zone a number of water points for animals have been constructed, far in excess 

of the wildlife requirements. Although this action reduces the formation of piospheres, 

vegetation utilisation is more uniform and no low utilisation areas exist as reserve during 

periods of drought. 


Figure 1: Location of the Marloth Park study area 


Figure 2: Township design and layout on Marloth Park 


GEOMORPHOLOGY 

Looking down from the Drakensberg mountain range, the Lowveld appears to be a monotonous 

level stretch of bush covered country, but in reality consists of an undulating landscape with 

ridges and well-defined watercourses (Figure 3). Marloth Park is incorporated in this low-lying 

tract of country with an elevation of between 200 and 270 m ASL and a gradient variance of 1º to 

10º. 

GEOLOGY 

The distribution of geological formations of Marloth Park (Figure 4) includes rocks from a wide 

variety of lithological units ranging in age from Swazian to Resent. Included in these are the 

biotite-trondhjemite gneiss and migmatite of the Swazian basement complex, rocks of the 

Barberton Sequence and intrusions of Timbavati Gabbro and Dolerite dykes (Figure 5). 

Barberton sequence 

The rock formations of this area are among the oldest on earth and are collectively grouped as the 

Barberton Sequence, and exceed a total thickness of 16 km. This group consists as a succession 

of volcanic layers, overlaid by sedimentary rocks. The oldest rocks of the Barberton Sequence 

are the ultra-basic to basic igneous rocks of the Onverwacht Group. This includes ultra-basic 

high-Magnesium lavas, periodic komatite, intermediate to basaltic metamorphic rock, 

intermediate to acid volcanic rocks and a large variety of pyroclastic rocks. 

A succession of rocks, mainly pelitic, follows on the Onverwacht Group and is collectively 

known as the Fig Tree Group. A striking layer of Chert and striped iron-containing Chert, the 

Ulundilayer, is found about halfway in the Fig Tree Group. The top formation in this group 

consists of pyroclastic rock, mainly tuff and agglomerate. The beginning of the Fig Tree Group is 

recognized by the exposure of shale interlayered with Chert, a hard, extremely compact, 

semivitreous cryptocristalline rock. 

Granite and gneiss of the Swazian quaternary 

The geology of the largest area on Marloth Park is biotite-tonalite. Tonalite exhibits a wide range 

in texture varying from non-exfoliated to lightly exfoliated, medium grained granite to gneiss and 

migmatite. The rocks are light grey when fresh but weather to a light brown colour. In the veld a 

low relief and relatively high degree of weathering characterize the rocks. Abrupt changes 

between textural variants and the presence of pegmatite veins are characteristic of this formation. 

Biotite is the only mafic mineral in gneiss that otherwise consists of plagioclase, quartz and 

potassium (K) feldspars. 


Figure 3: Topography of the Marloth Park study area 


Figure 4: Geology of the Marloth Park study area 


Figure 5: Geological formations of the Marloth Park study area 


Tonalitic granite and gneiss 

A section of tonalitic biotite-trondhjemite granite and gneiss is found on Marloth Park. This rock 

is elliptic and is found to terminate the layered effect of the surrounding rock formation rather 

abruptly. The granite gneiss formations are usually lower than the surrounding rock formations. 

Many dykes traverse the granite gneiss formation and are found to protrude above this formation 

due to the difference in resistance to weathering. Although the tonalite exhibits a central massive 

structure, a strongly exfoliated edge is found parallel to the point of contact with the surrounding 

rock formations. Tonalites consist of plagioclase and quartz with subservient biotite and 

hornblende. Tonalites are characterized by a relative homogeneity and restricted variation in 

chemical composition. 

Nelspruit suite 

The Nelspruit Suite consists of granite, porphyritic and magmatic granite. The granite is a grey to 

white biotite granite characterized by its colour and grain size that varies from medium to coarse 

grained. Magmatic and gneiss-like variants of this granite are found along east to west dykes 

running through Marloth Park and Lionspruit Game Reserve. 

Characteristic of the Nelspruit Suite is the general presence of coarse-grained pegmatite. 

Pegmatite being an igneous rock, with interlocking crystals, resembles granite in composition. 

The granite forms a coarse topography in contrast to the biotite gneiss and migmatite. The 

Nelspruit Suite consists of granite containing potassium feldspars, plagioclase, quartz, biotite and 

other minerals. Although the central granite area is mafic with no exfoliation, it may be found 

where contact is made with the surrounding rock formations. This exfoliation is accentuated by 

the parallel orientation of feldspar crystals. 

Intrusive rock formations 

Many dykes and plate formations are found as intrusions in the Swazian granite and gneiss. This 

includes plate formations of diabase and peridotite forming characteristic topographical features. 

Red, clay soils and plateaus with round boulders are usually found on these formations. 

These plate formations and dykes of peridotite consisting of olivine, dioptic augite and other 

minerals intrude through olivine gabbro (plagioclase, olivine hypersthene and augite) to 

diabase (plagioclase, augite transposed to amphibole, biotite and chlorite). Porphyritic quartz, 

diorite and quartz-diorite dykes are also present. 


Timbavati gabbro 

An area of Olivine Gabbro is found along the river bend, and extends from east to west through 

Marloth Park. This area is included in the Timbavati Gabbro formation and is characterized by its 

concave shape with a slope of 20º to 30º. The Timbavati Gabbro consists of plagioclase 

(labradorite to bytownite), pyroxene (both hypersthene and augite) and olivine. Biotite and 

chlorite can displace the pyroxene and serpentinise the olivine. Other minerals are quartz, 

potassium feldspars, biotite and oxide minerals. Biotite gneiss in close proximity to gabbro may 

change its colour to red. Hybridisation of gabbro due to assimilation of granite material is also 

found. 

Karoo dolerite 

Basic dyke formation of the late Karoo magmatic period is found throughout the area. Due to 

their relatively high resistance to weathering and erosion the dolerite dykes appear more 

dominant in areas. 

The dolerite dykes are generally fine grained, dark grey to black in colour with massive structure. 

These dykes consist of plagioclase (labradorite to bytownite) with augite and other minerals. 

Intrusions of dolerite dykes are due to weaknesses in the older rock formations and a definite 

north to south orientation may be identified. 

SOILS 

With the exposure of rock to a new environment - by the extrusion and solidification of lava and 

the upliftment of sediments - a soil begins to form. These sediments originate from parent rock 

by three major sets of processes - epiclastic (weathering), pyroclastic (explosive vulcanism) and 

cataclastic (crushing and grinding by differential movements along faults). The processes of 

weathering are the most important. Physical and chemical weathering, re-deposition of material 

combined with the activities of a succession of colonizing plants and animals, mould a distinctive 

soil body from the rock minerals in the parent. This process of soil formation culminates in the 

differentiation of the soil material into a series of horizons that constitute the soil profile. The 

horizons are distinguished by their visible and tangible properties such as colour, hardness and 

structural organization. 

The soils in the eastern Transvaal (lowveld) are residual and as a rule rather shallow (Figure 6). 

The thickness of the soil section rarely exceeds 750 mm with an average depth of 450 mm. A 

marked characteristic of these soils is the apparent absence of any secondary deposits like iron 

oxide concretions or calcium carbonate nodules in the soil section. 


Figure 6: Soil depth of the Marloth Park study area 


Not withstanding the fact that these soils are shallow, the weathered products of the surface 

layers seem to be fairly well leached of its soluble ingredients. The decomposition of certain 

minerals of the parent material seems to be very intense but the surface erosion keeps pace with 

the weathering of the underlying rocks. The heavy downpours causing run-off, and the high 

evaporation associated with high temperatures in the summer months, reduce the efficiency of 

the relatively high precipitation. All these factors are responsible for the shallow soils. 

The soils occurring in this area are closely associated with the underlying parent material and 

may be divided into two different macro soil associations (Land type map 2530 - Baberton). The 

land types identified on Marloth Park and Lionspruit Game Reserve are from land types Fb 64 

and Ea 75 (Figure 7). 

Land type Fb 64 overlaying geology of Potassic gneiss and migmatite, Timbavati gabbro and 

Biotite trondhjemite gneiss is the most dominant and extends over most of Marloth Park and 

Lionspruit Game Reserve. Shallow, coarse, sandy soils of the Glenrosa form (orthic A-horizon 

over a lithocutanic B-horizon) occur on the extensive crests and mid-slopes. These soils are 

bordered by a narrow zone of moderately deep, bleached, coarse and sandy, Cartref soils (orthic 

A-horizon over E-horizon over a lithocutanic B-horizon). In the valley bottoms are areas of 

duplex soils of the Sterkspruit form (orthic A-horizon over a prismacutanic B-horizon). This clay 

complex has poor drainage with low leaching. The resultant high sodium concentration increases 

the pH to a level where calcium carbonate precipitates. The soils develop a hard impermeable 

structure, impeding internal drainage and causing seasonal build-up of surface water. Bleached 

sandy soils are formed under these conditions due to a reduction in iron oxide and the lateral 

removal of both oxide and clay particles. This distinctive down-slope pattern of soils is 

maintained by the subsurface through-flow of water. The sandy crestal soils allow rapid 

infiltration of rainfall and good drainage with down slope subsurface flow. 

Land type Ea 75, with geology of predominantly mafic and ultramafic lavas and schists with 

banded ironstone and chert of the Tjakastad Formation, Onverwacht Group, occurs only as a 

relatively small area on Lionspruit Game Reserve. The low hills are characterised as extremely 

stony, dark, calcareous clays of the Arcadia form (vertic A-horizon over an unspecified B- 

horizon) and Bonheim form (melanic A-horizon over a pedocutanic B-horizon). Lower 

elevations are characterised by moderately deep, dark, calcareous clay soils of the Mayo (melanic 

A-horizon over a lithocutanic B-horizon), Bonheim and Arcadia forms. Red, structured clays of 

the Shortlands (orthic A-horizon over a red structured B-horizon) and Arcadia forms are also 

encountered. These soil groups have a high magnesium and calcium content and are base 

saturated. 


Figure 7: Land Types of the Marloth Park study area 


CLIMATE 

Climate, topography, soil and other biotic factors are considered as potentially restrictive factors 

in plant growth (Figure 8). Of the above factors, climate is considered as the most restrictive as 

vegetation is directly or indirectly dependent on climatic factors for the availability of minerals, 

growth and reproduction. These climatic factors are radiation, temperature and precipitation. 

Although the united effect of these factors exerts influence on vegetation, each may vary on 

macro-, meso- and micro-scale. 

The macroclimate of an area is considered as the long-term fluctuation of atmospheric conditions 

such as radiation, temperature, rain and wind. However, all atmospheric factors exhibit minor 

fluctuations over relatively short distances. These fluctuations may be attributed to variations in 

soil type and moisture contents, topography and vegetation of an area. The microclimate is 

considered as localised fluctuation occurring within the air layer directly above the soil surface, 

which is not influenced by meso- and macro-climatic conditions. The climatic data used for the 

evaluation of the Marloth Park were acquired from the following three weather stations 1 . 

• Friedenheim weather station - Number: 0555866 5; Longitude: 25º26' South; Latitude: 

30º59' East; Altitude: 671 m a.s.l. Data were collected during a period of 76 years from 

1929 to 2005. 

• Malelane weather station - Number: 0556898 7; Longitude: 25º28' South; Latitude: 


1938 to 2005. 

• Berg-en-Dal weather station - Number: 0556836 X; Longitude: 31º26' South; Latitude: 

Radiation 


1992 to 2005. 

Photosynthesis is influenced by various factors such as latitude, altitude, humidity, terrain and 

light. Of the above, light is the most important factor, as it is this energy captured by the process 

of photosynthesis that is converted to chemical energy. These chemical energy compounds are 

essential in maintaining biomass production and form the basis of all food chains and thus energy 

flow. 

1 Weather Bureau, Department of Environmental Affairs, Private Bag X 447, 0001 Pretoria. 


Figure 8: Land use in the Marloth Park study area 


Suppression of radiation occurs in the atmosphere due to the deflection and absorption of energy 

by ozone, carbon- dioxide, water vapour, and dust particles in suspension. This diffused radiation 

shows the same tendency as global radiation, with a recorded minimum in June and a maximum 

in January. The total radiation shows an annual oscillation, with the lowest values recorded 

during the period May to August and the highest during December to February. Most of the 

absorbed energy is converted to heat, elevating the temperature of the earth's crust and increasing 

the rate of water evaporation. 

Temperature 

The average temperatures in the Lowveld of Mpumalanga are the highest in the Republic of 

South Africa, varying from 14.9ºC to 23.8ºC as recorded at the Friedenheim weather station 

(Station number: 0555866 5; Latitude: 25º26' South; Longitude: 30º59' East; Altitude: 671 m 

a.s.l.). The summers are extremely hot with a maximum-recorded temperature of 39.8ºC. The 

mean daily maximum temperature for this area during a period of 44 years is 19.9ºC and the 

mean minimum temperature is 0.9ºC. The weather conditions during the winter months are ideal 

with bright sunshine during the day. The maximum temperature amplitude is reached during this 

period, with the lowest recorded temperature of -2ºC. 

Rainfall 

The climate of the Lowveld is subtropical. The rainy season coincides with the summer months - 

September to April. The winters are generally dry. Apart from the dry winters, fairly severe 

droughts are sometimes experienced. Although the mean annual rainfall of this area is rather low, 

varying from 505 mm to 835 mm, the fluctuations in precipitation are enormous. The rainfall, 

which is rather erratic, generally occurs in thunderstorms and heavy downpours, causing run-off. 

The soils are light textured, grass- and bush-covered and rather shallow with a fairly poor water 

retaining capacity. Furthermore, the evaporation owing to the heat of the sun in summer is high, 

thus reducing the beneficial effect of rain showers. Hailstorms are rare, but occurrence may be 

rather severe. 

The precipitation for this area was recorded at the Malelane rainfall station (Station number: 

0556898 7; Latitude: 25º46' South; Longitude: 31º50' East and Altitude: 305 m a.s.l.) over a 

period of 67 years. The seasonal variance for the period 1938 to 2005 reveals a mean annual 

rainfall of 610.1 mm with a maximum and minimum recorded annual rainfall of 949.6 mm and 

203.0 mm, respectively (Figure 9). A variance in amplitude of 746.6 mm thus exists between the 

recorded extremes. 


A 610.1 

B 104.0 

C 7.4 

D 19.9 

E 39.8 

F -2.0 

120 

100 

80 

Rainfall 

60 

40 

20 

0 

A - Mean annual rainfall in mm 

J 

B - Highest monthly rainfall in mm 

C - Lowest monthly rainfall in mm 

D - Mean annual temperature in °C 

A S O N D J 

Months 

F M A M J 

Rainfall Temperature 

Dry season Wet season 

E - Highest monthly temperature in °C (January) 

F - Lowest monthly temperature in °C (June) 

Figure 9: A climate diagram for the Marloth Park study area 

© Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park 22 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

Temperature

Frost 

Moderate frost - screen minimum less than 0 ºC - occurs in 15 percent of the years, with a mean 

frost season length of 2 days. Frost may be expected to occur during the winter months of June 

and July. 

Wind 

The wind speed and direction recorded at the Friedenheim weather station (Station number: 

0555866 5; Latitude: 25º26' South; Longitude: 30º59' East; Altitude: 671 m a.s.l.) over a period 

of 30 years, was computed to determine the prevailing wind direction and average wind velocity. 

The most prevailing wind direction was determined as northeast, with an average directional 

frequency of 147 per thousand. The highest monthly average velocity recorded was 4.5 m.s -1 . 

VEGETATION 

The environmental attributes largely determine the graphical distribution of plant species and 

plant communities. A knowledge of the physical environment is thus a prerequisite for the 

understanding and ecological interpretation of plant communities identified during vegetation 

surveys. 

Marloth Park is situated in the lowveld, dominated by tropical bush and savanna veld types. 

This veld type occupies the plains between the eastern foot of the Drakensberg and the 

western foot of the Lebombo Range, where altitudes vary from 150 to 600 m above sea level. 

A large number of plant species are present, especially in the valleys and on rocky hills with 

sandy soils. The dominant trees are knob thorn Acacia nigrescens, marula Sclerocarya birrea 

subsp. africana, giant raisin Grewia hexamita, weeping wattle Peltophorum africanum, sickle 

bush Dichrostachys cinerea, common resin tree Ozoroa paniculosa, caterpillar bush 

Ormocarpum trichocarpum, red bushwillow Combretum apiculatum and silver cluster leaf 

Terminalia sericea. The grass layer is mixed and on the sour side, with iron grass Aristida 

diffusa subsp. burkei, hairy trident grass Tristachya leucothrix, broad-leaved bluestem 

Diheteropogon amplectens, weeping love grass Eragrostis curvula, broad-leaved panicum 

Panicum deustum, hairy love grass Eragrostis trichophora, herringbone grass Pogonarthria 

squarrosa, velvet signal grass Brachiaria serrata, common thatching grass Hyparrhenia hirta 

and red grass Themeda triandra as the dominant species. A profusion of forbs such as wild 

basil Ocimum canum, Oxygonum dregeanum, Felicia muricata, Rhynchosia densiflora, 

Zornia milneana, meidebossie Waltheria indica and spiny sida Sida alba are also found in 

this vegetation type. 


INTRODUCTION 

VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION ON MARLOTH PARK 

When exploiting an area for financial benefit, the preservation of the environment and 

sustainability of natural resources must be assured, by implementing a sound management 

plan and a monitoring programme to determine the effects of applied management techniques. 

Sound ecological principles should be the basis for any effective planning. 

A functional ecosystem is characterised by interaction between its abiotic and biotic 

components, including a flow of energy and biochemical cycles. These components can be 

measured qualitatively or quantitatively as variation in climate, geology, soil, drainage, water 

regime, topography, animals, fire, and disturbance. 

Vegetation is the base of the trophic pyramid in the ecosystem as it converts solar energy 

through photosynthesis and makes this energy available for other organisms. Vegetation has a 

huge influence on the ecosystem, and in itself is mainly driven and determined by the physical 

and biological environmental factors of the ecosystem. Because of this, ecosystem types are 

usually determined according to different vegetation types that are recognised by variation in 

composition and structure. 

In the different vegetation types smaller patterns are distinguished in the landscape indicating 

different plant communities. These are defined as groups of associated plant species occurring 

in their peculiar habitat characterised by a relatively uniform physiognomy or appearance. A 

plant community, therefore, reflects local environmental and vegetation variation of an area. 

Recording the habitat data such as soil, water regime, aspect, and geography as well as 

species composition can facilitate the identification of a plant community. Major distinctions 

for plant communities are made on the basis of physiognomy or growth form of the 

vegetation, which are qualitative properties. Furthermore, a plant community can be 

quantitatively described in terms of density, frequency, cover estimation and biomass yield. 

The species composition of the plant community is determined by identifying all plant species 

in a defined area that is considered to be representative of the vegetation. This is done as plant 

communities represent homogenous vegetation units. Within each homogenous vegetation 

unit, the probability to find a specific plant species at a definite place is more or less similar 

for the whole community. Climate, landscape, soil and plant species composition in this area 

are homogeneous to such extend that it will have the same grazing and browsing value, and 

potential for plant biomass production. 


For environmental planning not only the vegetation but also the habitat has to be considered. 

It is therefore, prudent that plant communities, rather than individual plant species, should be 

considered for management and planning purposes. Plant communities summarise the entire 

floristic diversity and integrate the environmental variables such as distribution and 

occurrence of rare and endangered species, the degree of man’s influence, degradation and 

vegetation dynamics, as well as habitats for animals. The plant composition linked with other 

environmental factors such as soil, climate, temperature, geological factors and rainfall can 

explain why certain species occur in this special habitat and give insight to mechanisms in 

this special ecosystem. With this knowledge predictions can be made as to how the ecosystem 

might react to applied management actions. 

The development of vegetation in any area throughout a series of different plant groupings or 

communities from pioneer to climax species is called plant succession. Succession involves 

changes of habitat in the form of immigration and consecutive extinction of species, together 

with changes in their relative abundances. This biotic action happens because the 

establishment of new plant species changes the microclimate and makes the habitat more 

suitable for subsequent follow-up plant species. In primary succession development starts on 

bare ground, which is colonised by pioneer plants. Secondary succession is the rapid recovery 

of a disturbed habitat. A habitat is disturbed where vegetation cover is removed or modified to 

an earlier stage because of human interference, animal influence, fire or drought. Ultimately, 

development leads to a climax community, which represents a relatively stable stage. 

Equilibrium is reached with either regional climate (climatic climax) or other inhibiting 

factors such as soil types, topography or nutrient content (edaphic climax) or biotic factors 

such as the influence of animals, humans or fires (biotic climax). It is important to determine 

the seral stage represented by the plant community, and to monitor for changes, to achieve the 

desired objective in manipulating the environment using adaptive management. 

To facilitate management of an area, it is divided into units of similar characteristics and 

manageable size. Areas that are influenced by different environmental factors such as 

geology, geography and climate react differently to natural changes or human interference 

and have to be considered independently when devising a management plan. The 

homogenous vegetation units occurring within the area define the management units. Each 

homogenous unit is identified by its plant composition, where a plant community is defined as 

a group of associated plant species occurring in a particular habitat with a relatively uniform 

physiognomy or appearance. 


METHOD 

For an initial and broad scale differentiation of vegetation units of the area, vegetation types 

and veld types are identified using criteria for classification of South African vegetation. The 

property boundaries are delineated from aerial photographs 2 , from which homogenous 

topographic-physiognomic areas are identified and delineated. The differing patterns or 

shades of grey on the aerial photograph, define the homogenous units. To refine these, further 

environmental factors are taken into account. Geological formations and land types are 

obtained from geological and land type maps 3 . Geographic factors such as terrain form, 

aspect, drainage lines and rivers as well as artificial factors as roads, fences and dams are 

obtained from topocadastral 4 and hydrological maps 4 . Climatic factors such as mean rainfall 

and mean temperature are reflected in the different land types and represented in the land type 

memoirs 5 . Superimposing the different layers on the aerial photograph shows a more detailed 

partitioning of the homogenous topographic-physiognomic units. 

After identification of homogenous topographic-physiognomic units, areas for survey plots 

are chosen using a randomly stratified sampling method, where plots are evenly distributed 

throughout the homogenous unit. A survey plot distance of at least 100 m away from 

disturbances such as roads, structures and waterholes has to be implemented. 

Analytical phase 

In the field the location of homogenous topographic-physiognomic units are verified, to 

ensure that the survey plots are representative of the surrounding area. A survey plot size of 4 

x 4 m in grassland, and 10 x 20 m in bushveld is considered sufficient in size to be 

representative of the environment and record most variation. 

The visually dominant species and the physiognomy of the area, according to Edwards’s 

classification, are recorded where structural description of the area is required to ensure 

structural homogeneity. Other environmental factors that can influence plant community 

development are also recorded: 

2 Available from: “The Surveyor General, 240 Vermeulen Street, Pretoria Central 0002 Pretoria“ 

3 Available from: “Council for Geoscience, 280 Pretoria Street, Silverton 0184 Pretoria“ 

4 Available from: “The Government Printer, 149 Bosman Street, Pretoria Central 0002 Pretoria“ 

5 Available from: “Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, 600 Belvedere Street, Arcadia 0001 Pretoria” 


• The aspect differs in its´ exposure to sunlight and therefore, in dryness. Areas 

with northern aspect are dryer than areas with southern aspect in the southern 

hemisphere. 

• The slope is mainly described as flat, average or steep. It differs in the amount of 

water runoff and proneness to erosion and therefore, in the availability of water 

and soil as a growth medium. 

The terrain form is documented as crest, mid-slope or valley which in this study. 

It influences the availability of water and the soil profile. 

• The geomorphology is described as flat, concave or convex, while the topography 

is described as mountain, ridge, plain, valley, pan or riverbank. Both influence the 

drainage of water. 

• The degree of trampling influences plant re-growth and proneness to erosion. 

• The degree of erosion influences the top layer of the soil and therefore, the 

availability of growth medium. 

• The drainage is recorded as wet or dry, as it influences the occurrence of plants 

that are adapted to these conditions. 

• The geology and rock cover influences the soil profile and soil type with soil 

being important as the growth medium. 

• The soil colour can indicate clay content and thus leaching of nutrients. 

• The clay content of the soil influences the availability of minerals and water to 

plants. 

• The canopy cover consists of the following groups: large trees, small trees, shrubs 

and forbs. Canopy cover influences suitable shaded habitat and therefore, the 

occurrence of specific plant species. 

• The biotic influences such as termites influence the habitat and the occurrence of 

plant species. 

The soil and its profile are of importance as they are the growth medium for the plants, 

supplying nutrients and physical support. 


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Analysis and synthesis of data collected on Marloth Park result in a classification of the 

vegetation. A total of 275 species were recorded. However, not all of the identified species 

were used in the classification of the plant communities. Those species, which occurred in 

low consistency, were omitted, as these species do not influence the interpretation of the data 

or the classification of the plant communities. A complete list of all tree (Appendix I), grass 

(Appendix 2) and forbs species (Appendix 3) encountered on Marloth Park has been 

compiled. The following plant communities were identified: 

The five major plant communities identified on Marloth Park (Figure 10) exhibit a close 

association with the study conducted of Lionspruit Game Reserve. However, two more plant 

community have been identified; the first is associated with the gabbro formation that 

traverses Marloth Park from east to west, and the second is based on historic utilisation. 

Fragmented variations also occur, but are relatively small and localised. Where these 

variations are considered of importance or warrant protection, they are discussed in more 

detail. 

The five plant communities on Marloth Park are: 

1. The Chloris virgata – Acacia grandicornuta Low thicket 

2. The Trichoneura grandiglumis – Combretum apiculatum Short bushland 

3. The Themeda triandra – Acacia nigrescens Low bushland 

4. The Spirostachys africana – Balanites maughamii Low bushland 

5. The Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus Low bushland 

Plant community 1: The Chloris virgata – Acacia grandicornuta Low thicket 

This plant community consists of relatively small fragmented areas, characterised by the 

presence of deep sandy plains with well-leached soils. This leaching of soils is attributed to 

sub-surface, down hill, water-flow that transports minerals and clay particles to lower lying 

terrain forms. 

The most conspicuous tree species are red bushwillow Combretum apiculatum and velvet 

raisin Grewia flava. However, the presence of horned thorn Acacia grandicornuta, black 

monkey orange Strychnos madagascariensis and common hook thorn Acacia caffra is 

considered character species. Other tree species are marula Sclerocarya birrea subsp. 

africana, buffalo thorn Ziziphus mucronata, giant raisin Grewia hexamita, mallow raisin 

Grewia villosa, sandpaper raisin Grewia flavescens, silver cluster leaf Terminalia sericea, 

white-berry bush Flueggea virosa and velvet corkwood Commiphora mollis. 


Figure 10: Plant communities of the Marloth Park study area 


The dominant grass species are broad-leaved panicum Panicum deustum and common carrot- 

seed grass Tragus berteronianus. Other grass species includes Guinea grass Panicum 

maximum, Lehmann’s love grass Eragrostis lehmanniana var. lehmanniana, couch grass 

Cynodon dactylon, vinger grass Digitaria eriantha and common crowsfoot Dactyloctenium 

aegyptium. The forbs layer is characterised by the presence of laventelbossie Lippia javanica, 

Cleome angustifola, Cleome maculata, Heliotropium ciliatum, wild foxglove Ceratotheca 

triloba and witbiesie Kyllinga alba. 

Plant community 2: The Trichoneura grandiglumis – Combretum apiculatum Short 

bushland 

This plant community is found to dominate the vegetation on Marloth Park. The gently 

undulating terrain is characterised by relatively shallow, sandy soils of the Glenrosa and 

Hutton forms. Two variations can be found in this plant community. The first is the 

Combretum apiculatum – Terminalia sericea variation, where silver cluster leaf is dominant. 

This variation is associated with the shallow crestal soils. Although silver cluster leaf is 

generally associated with the Cartref soil form, it can also abound on the Glenrosa soil form. 

The second is the Combretum apiculatum – Eragrostis rigidior variation, associated with the 

deeper Hutton soil formations. Both soil forms exhibit low degradable mineral content and 

low potential for clay forming, thus allowing for rapid infiltration and drainage of rainfall. 

The red bushwillow Combretum apiculatum, generally associated with shallow, rocky soil 

formations, is conspicuous throughout this plant community. Other trees found in this plant 

community are silver cluster leaf Terminalia sericea, sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea, 

glossy-leaved corkwood Commiphora schimperi, marula Sclerocarya birrea subsp. africana, 

white raisin Grewia bicolor, sandpaper raisin Grewia flavescens var. flavescens, buffalo thorn 

Ziziphus mucronata and Swazi acacia Acacia swazica. The grass layer is dominated by broad- 

leaved panicum Panicum deustum. Other grass species found include finger grass Digitaria 

eriantha, Guinea grass Panicum maximum, carrot-seed grass Tragus berteronianus, red grass 

Themeda triandra, annual three-awn Aristida adscensionis, spreading three-awn Aristida 

congesta subsp. barbicollis and lehmann’s love grass Eragrostis lehmanniana var. 

lehmanniana. This plant community has a high diversity of forbs species that include 

Commelina erecta, Pavonia burchellii, wild sesame Sesamum triphyllum, wild asparagus 

Protosparagus suaveolens, Gisekia viscosa, Dicoma tomentosa, Cleome maculata, 

Heliotropium ciliatum, creeping sorrel Ocimum canum, meidebossie Waltheria indica and 

Aptosimum lineare. 


Plant community 3: The Themeda triandra – Acacia nigrescens Low bushland 

This plant community is found to dominate the drainage-line vegetation on Marloth Park. 

These drainage-lines are characterised by shallow, dark clays of the Bonheim and Arcadia 

soils forms. However, areas with Mayo, Sterkspruit and Shortlands soil forms can also be 

found. These soils are generally deep, with a high clay contents that results in poor infiltration 

and low drainage capabilities. The knob thorn Acacia nigrescens is dominant throughout this 

plant community. Two variations can be found in this community. The first is the Euclea 

divinorum – Acacia grandicornuta variation, restricted to drainage-lines and lower slopes. 

This variation is associated with the Sterkspruit soil form, where formation is attributed to 

mineral and clay particles illuviation from higher lying terrain areas. The second is the 

Dalbergia melanoxylon – Acacia nigrescens variation, found at slightly higher elevations but 

adjacent to the drainage-lines. 

The dominant trees species are knob thorn Acacia nigrescens and lowveld cluster leaf 

Terminalia prunioides. Other sub-dominant tree species include tree wisteria Bolusanthus 

speciosus, apple leaf Lonchocarpus capassa, russet bushwillow Combretum hereroense, red 

bushwillow Combretum apiculatum, common resin tree Ozoroa paniculosa and leadwood 

Combretum imberbe. The grass layer is dominated by blue buffalo grass Cenchrus ciliaris, 

with broad-leaved panicum Panicum deustum being sub-dominant. Other grass species 

include common carrot-seed grass Tragus berteronianus, Guinea grass Panicum maximum, 

sand quick Schmidtia pappophoroides, stinking grass Bothriochloa radicans, sawtooth love 

grass Eragrostis superba, long-awned three-awn Aristida stipitata and red grass Themeda 

triandra. The forbs layer consists of Kyphocarpa angustifolia, Tragus rupestris, Dicoma 

tomentosa, Abutilon austro-africanum, asparagus fern Protosparagus setaceus, Commelina 

erecta, dubbeltjie Tribulus terrestris, tall khaki weed Tagetes minuta and wildejakopregop 

Zinnia peruviana. 

Plant community 4: The Spirostachys africana – Balanites maughamii Low bushland 

This plant community is associated with the underlying gabbro geology, found as a band that 

runs through the river bend. Characteristic of this formation is the exposed quartzite rocks and 

relatively shallow soils. However, hybridisation with the surrounding granitic material can 

give rise to deeper soil formations. It is within this plant community that the unidentified 

Cyphostemma/Cissus plant species had been found. 

The tree species found in this plant community is associated with soils that typically have a 

higher clay contents. 


The characteristic tree species are magic quarri Euclea divinorum, caterpillar bush 

Ormocarpum trichocarpum, weeping wattle Peltophorum africanum, green thorn Balanites 

maughamii, tamboti Spirostachys africana, Transvaal saffron Cassine transvaalensis, giant 

raisin Grewia hexamita, mallow raisin Grewia villosa and sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea. 

The grass layer is dominated by broad-leaved panicum Panicum deustum and vinger grass 

Digitaria eriantha. Other grass specie include common carrot-seed grass Tragus 

berteronianus, long-awn three-awn Aristida stipitata subsp. stipitata, Guinea grass Panicum 

maximum and Lehmann’s love grass Eragrostis lehmanniana var. lehmanniana. The forbs 

found in this plant community include Commelina erecta, Cleome maculata, Tephrosia 

pupurea, Abutilon austro-africanum, flannel weed Sida cordifolia, Kyphocarpa angustifolia, 

spiny sida Sida alba, creeping sorrel Ocimum canum, wild foxglove Ceratotheca triloba and 

Crabbea hirsuta. 

Plant community 5: The Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus Low bushland 

This plant community is associated with marginally deeper soils that consist of the Hutton soil 

formation and the sandy alluvial soils deposited along the river. Classification is based on 

land-use, where historically these areas have been cultivated. Although these areas have been 

left fallow for a number of years, recovery is a slow process. 

Sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea is the dominant tree species, and occur in high densities. 

Although considered a good species for fodder production, the high density is negatively 

affecting the herbaceous layer’s production level. Other trees include white raisin Grewia 

bicolor, common spike-thorn Gymnosporia buxifolia, buffalo thorn Ziziphus mucronata, 

apple leaf Lonchocarpus capassa, giant raisin Grewia hexamita, white-berry bush Flueggea 

virosa and caterpillar bush Ormocarpum trichocarpum. The dominant grass species are carrot 

seed grass Tragus berteronianus and Bushveld signal grass Urochloa mosambicensis. The 

sub-dominant grass is jungle rice Echinochloa colona. The forbs layer is characterised by the 

presence of Evolvulus alsinoides, flannel weed Sida cordifolia, Crabbea hirsuta, fishbone 

cassia Chaemacrista mimosoides, Pavonia burchellii, spiny sida Sida alba, Kyphocarpa 

angustifolia, Abutilon austro-africanum, wild cotton Gossypium herbaceum subsp. africanum, 

and poison apple Solanum panduriforme. 

This plant community has a relatively low diversity due to the high densities of sickle bush 

Dichrostachys cinerea. Furthermore, these trees have grown beyond the maximum browse 

height of most antelope species. It is recommended that sound ecological principles are 

applied in improving the production level of this plant community. It is also in this 

community that a small variation of note can be found. 


This variation is characterised by the profusion of caterpillar bush Ormocarpum 

trichocarpum, with an understory of the summer impala lily Adenium swazicum and Aloe 

chabaudi. As this is the only location of this variation it is recommended that some protective 

measures be implemented, and that future development be aware of this occurrence. 

Due to the infrastructural development of Marloth Park most of the plant communities are 

fragmented and almost impossible to manage as separate management units. A more holistic 

approach is advocated where localised tendencies are addressed as part of an integrated 

management plan. The plant communities identified are used to determine the potential of the 

veld to sustain animal production without deterioration of the environment. Where 

degradation is evident these will be addressed under header specific recommendations. 


VELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND THE CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL 

GRAZING CAPACITY 

INTRODUCTION 

A basic requirement when establishing a management plan for a wildlife ranch is the 

assessment of the condition of the veld. The term veld does not cover grass species only but 

refers to all aspects of the vegetation. Veld condition is defined as the state of health of the 

veld in terms of its ecological status, its resistance to soil erosion and its potential for 

sustainable forage production. Veld condition therefore refers to the velds´ state in relation to 

its productivity for animals. 

Knowledge about the veld condition is essential when devising a management plan for any 

livestock farm or wildlife area. The aim of such an enterprise is maximum profit gained 

through optimal animal production. To realize this goal over an extended period, without 

deterioration of the environment, some ecological aspects need to be taken into consideration. 

The aim should be to use the land sustainably, which implies to exploit it to a maximum while 

maintaining or creating optimal veld that stays in good, productive and re-productive 

condition. A major management dependent factor, that influences the veld condition, is the 

applied grazing pressure. Stocking rates should be calculated according to the prevailing veld 

condition to prevent deterioration of the veld; it is achieved by relating veld condition to 

grazing and browsing capacity values. Wise grazing management such as subdivisions into 

camps or additional watering points can also serve to improve veld condition. Veld condition 

assessment is furthermore valuable for monitoring trends, as veld deterioration indicators is 

noted early, during a stage where it can still be negated by appropriate management measures. 

Classifying vegetation types and quantifying their condition using veld condition assessments 

simplifies the prediction of impacts due to management measures, by comparing similar 

vegetation types and their intrinsic ecological processes. 

Veld condition assessment 

A means of determining the veld condition is the assessment of soil loss. But soil loss is 

difficult to measure and, once obvious, an indicator of high and often irreversible degradation. 

Changes in vegetation structure or species composition are better criteria for assessing veld 

condition, as environmental changes can be detected before they become irreversible. To 

evaluate changes in the veld condition it is either compared to baseline data or previous 

surveys conducted on the same site, as with a monitoring programme. Alternatively, it can be 

compared to a reference site or benchmark, where a benchmark is defined as the best possible 

botanical composition and cover in relation to prevailing climate. 


When selecting the reference site, similar veld type, habitat and most importantly, 

environmental factors such as soil type and depth, topography, rockiness, aspect, and soil- 

moisture must be taken into account; as well as the objectives for future utilisation. 

Veld condition is assessed in different ways. The method applied is selected based on 

predetermined objectives of the enterprise. An agronomic and/or an ecological approach can 

be used. The agronomical approach is used where maximum production is required, not 

considering ecological requirements. The ecological approach is based on evaluating climate 

and other natural events such as fire, and considering the potential impacts of applied 

management principles on the environment. 

The seral stage is the measure of veld condition, where the pioneer stage represents poor veld 

condition, and the sub-climax to climax stages represents good veld conditions. Methods 

commonly used throughout South Africa are the Benchmark Method, the Ecological Index 

Method, the Key Species Method, the Weighted Key Species Method and the use of 

degradation gradients. The Benchmark Method is based on comparing the sample site with 

an ecologically similar reference site in excellent veld condition. The Key Species Method 

rates veld condition according to specially pre-selected grazing-responsive grass species. The 

Benchmark Method and Key Species Methods are used less frequently due to several 

shortcomings. With the Benchmark Method veld condition is calculated according to the 

limitations of the subjectively selected benchmark, which means that only species occurring 

in the benchmark site are considered. Furthermore, re-evaluation of the benchmark, due to 

short-term seasonal fluctuations, is necessary every 5 to 10 years to monitor long-term 

environmental changes. The disadvantage of the Key Species Method is that the veld 

condition score alone might not distinguish between differences in ecological categories of 

grass species. By weighting the key species, as in the Weighted Key Species Method, the veld 

condition score is correlated to the grazing history. This gives a good indication of veld 

condition if the survey sites are positioned along a gradient of grazing intensity. The 

Ecological Index Method and Degradation Gradients Method are mainly used for veld 

condition assessments. 

The Degradation Gradient Method (DGM) makes use of degradation gradients and bases its´ 

approach, to assessing veld condition, on the reaction of the veld to disturbance such as 

overgrazing. In fact, the reaction to any biotic or abiotic environmental influence on the 

vegetation is considered with the Degradation Gradient Method. 


Degradation gradients are models that describe changes in long-term vegetation status and 

habitat characteristics due to utilisation, which can range from under-utilisation to severe 

over-utilisation. Only grass species that are significant indicators of grazing condition are 

surveyed. 

The Ecological Index Method aims to determine veld condition by classifying plant species 

into ecological categories based on their reaction to grazing and burning. The proportional 

composition of the different ecological categories are expressed as frequencial occurrence and 

then weighted, using specific ecological index values. The veld condition score is then 

evaluated on a predetermined scale of system potential and health. 

The Ecological Index Method meets most of the requirements for successful veld condition 

assessments with regards to reliability, speed, objectivity and repeatability. 

Grazing capacity 

The grazing capacity of an area refers to its potential to support a number of a grazer animal 

populations. Ideally, based on ecological principles to ensure sustainability, the grazing 

capacity is calculated in such a way as to ensure that the condition of the veld does not 

deteriorate over time, while the animals are kept in good productive and reproductive 

condition. The relationship between animal numbers to be supported and the area of land 

required is expressed by the grazing capacity, which is quantified as either the number of 

animal units per area, usually hectares or as hectares per animal unit. 

A Large Stock Unit is defined as a bovine of 450 kg body mass, where body mass should 

increase by 500 g a day on grassland with a mean digestibility of 55 percent. Wildlife grazing 

requirements are based on the metabolic energy requirements in relation to a Large Stock 

Unit. Furthermore, the growth rate, basal heat production and maintenance requirements, 

efficiency of energy utilisation and food preference is taken into account when calculating 

livestock unit equivalences for wild southern African ungulates. This approach does not take 

into account that domestic and wild animals show differing feeding behaviour. Impala 

Aepyceros melampus melampus and blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus prefer to graze 

on short grasses, while zebra Equus burchelli and buffalo Syncerus caffer as well as domestic 

bovine prefer medium to tall grasses. A further difference is found in the selectivity for grass 

species. Another important aspect is that game and domestic animals do not compare in terms 

of weight gain. For more accurate calculations of grazing capacities the use of Graze Animal 

Units (GAU), is used. 


In contrast to the grazing capacity the stocking rate refers to the number of animals kept on a 

specific area over a specific period. This number results from management decisions, usually 

based on the calculation of productivity per land unit. Stocking rates are not necessarily 

sustainable. In an ecologically sound management system stocking rates are determined based 

on the ecological carrying capacity, i.e. the sum of the grazing and browsing capacities, and 

supported predator populations. Several approaches have been made to determine grazing 

capacity. The herbaceous phytomass method is based on available plant biomass, which in 

turn is based on the daily food requirements of a Large Stock Unit. Phytomass production is 

determined, either by direct harvesting techniques or the use of a disc pasture meter. The 

rainfall method relates mean annual rainfall to herbivore biomass data. This approach is only 

used as an approximation as local spatial and temporal variations are not accounted for. The 

combined veld condition and rainfall method is considered the most appropriate method since 

it considers both veld condition and long-term rainfall data. 

OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of this study are to: 

METHOD 

• Determine percentage frequencies of grass species composition 

• Determine the veld condition scores according to the Ecological Index Method 

• Determine the grazing capacities and recommended stocking rates based on the 

veld condition scores. 

Veld condition assessment 

In this study the Ecological Index Method is used to determine veld condition. The method is 

based on the comparison of sample sites in homogenous topographic-physiognomic units, 

with a benchmark site in a similar unit under the same environmental conditions. The 

benchmark site is considered to be representative of the potential of areas´ vegetation, based 

on limitations imposed by the climate, soil depth, soil type, topography, aspect and soil 

moisture ration. In the absence of a benchmark site, a survey site with the best potential, 

within a homogeneous topographic-physiognomic unit, can be used as a benchmark for 

comparison. 

Three survey sites within each homogenous topographic-physiognomic are chosen randomly, 

to collect baseline data using the Step-point Method. A total of 200 survey points are 

evaluated along a line transect that traverse the unit. 


The nearest grass species to each survey point is then identified and recorded. Only grasses 

within a predetermined, maximum cut-off distance of 0.3 m are identified and recorded. A 

miss is noted if no grass species grows within the cut-off distance. This cut-off distance is 

determined prior to the onset of the Step-point survey to compensate for the exclusion of 

basal cover measurements. The frequency occurrence of each grass species is determined in 

each of the homogenous topographic-physiognomic units. 

Each grass species is then allocated to its respective ecological category, based on its reaction 

to grazing pressure and burning. As the grasses react to veld management actions or natural 

events such as fire or drought, as retrogressive succession, this is taken as the basis for the 

evaluation of the veld condition. Retrogressive succession follows certain patterns, where 

climax grasses, sub-climax grasses, perennial pioneer grasses, annual pioneer grasses, 

ephemerals and unpalatable invader species successively dominate plant communities. The 

grass species are classified into ecological categories based on the following criteria: 

• Decreasers, which are species that are dominant in veld in excellent condition 

and increase with under- or over-utilisation. 

• Increasers Ia, which are species that increase with moderate under-utilisation. 

• Increasers Ib, which are species that increase with minimal or absent defoliation. 

• Increasers IIa, which are species that are rare in veld in excellent condition and 

increase with moderate long-term overgrazing. 

• Increasers IIb, which are species that are rare in veld in excellent condition and 

increase with heavy long-term overgrazing. 

• Increasers IIc, which are species that are rare in veld in excellent condition and 

increase with excessive long-term overgrazing. 

• Invaders, which are species that are foreign to the plant community or increase 

aggressively. 

Species are allocated to the different categories on the basis of quantitative data gathered in 

long-term grazing trials. Where such data is not available, experienced pasture specialists 

classify species subjectively. As species reactions to grazing and other management actions 

might differ in varying environments due to different plant community composition and 

different patterns of competition, the allocation of a species to a specific category is 

dependent on the ecological zone. The percentage frequency of each ecological group is 

summed and then multiplied by its respective index values to obtain a veld condition score. 

According to its ecological value each ecological group is allocated a weighted index value. 


The following relative ecological index values are assigned: 

Decreasers - 10 

Increasers Ia - 7 

Increasers Ib - 7 

Increasers IIa - 4 

Increasers IIb - 4 

Increasers IIc - 1 

Invaders - 1 

The maximum veld condition score of 1000 is based on 100 percent Decreaser grass species. 

The minimum veld condition score of 100 is based on 100 percent Increaser IIc or invader 

species. However, the occurrence of misses recorded can in effect reduce this value. 

According to the dominance of the various ecological groups the veld can be classify as in 

excellent condition if Decreasers dominate, in good to fair condition if Increaser Ia and 

Increaser Ib dominate, in fair to poor condition if Increaser IIa and Increaser IIb dominates, 

and in poor to very poor condition if Increaser IIc and invader grass species dominate. Veld in 

excellent condition is representative of a homogenous unit that is most productive in a 

specific area, and is considered most resilient if utilised with prudence. 

The veld condition score of a survey site in itself already gives an indication as to the 

potential of the veld, but is usually compared to the veld condition score of a benchmark site, 

determined using the same survey method. The benchmark value is taken as the potentially 

maximum value and divided into five equal portions (1 to 110 for very poor, 111 to 220 for 

poor, 221 to 330 for moderate, 331 to 440 for good and 441 to 550 for excellent condition) for 

evaluation. If no benchmark site is available for comparison, the following categories are 

implemented: 

Where a veld condition score of 

0 to 39.9 % indicates veld in poor condition 

40 to 60 % indicates veld in moderate condition 

60.1 to 100 % indicates veld in good condition 


Calculation of grazing capacity 

The combined veld condition and rainfall method, based on the following equation, is applied 

to calculate the grazing capacity in this study area. 

GC = -0.03 + (0.00289 * X1) + (X2 – 419.7) * 0.000633 

Where: 

GC = grazing capacity in Large Stock Units (LSU) per hectare 

X1 = percentage veld condition score 

X2 = mean annual rainfall in mm per year. 

It is recommended that long-term rainfall data be used, as this will result in a grazing capacity 

value that is suitable for sustainable stocking rates. The use of short-term rainfall data, 

covering only 2 to 3 years, can result in unsustainable values due to the inability of a rancher 

to implement the required fluctuations in applying suitable stocking rates. 

As the veld condition and rainfall method was originally designed to calculate grazing 

capacities for cattle production, the values obtained from the equation should be tailored to fit 

the purposes of a wildlife ranch. Adjustment of the calculated grazing capacity value is 

necessary, due to the inability of the rancher to implement an effective rotational resting 

system, and to compensate for the selective feeding behaviour of wildlife. It is recommended 

that the calculated grazing capacity be reduced by 30 percent to facilitate these factors and 

ensure sustainable use of the natural resources without deterioration of the habitat. 


Veld condition 

All grass species are identified (Appendix 2) in the step-point field surveys on Marloth Park 

and the frequency of each grass species in every plant community calculated. A veld 

condition score and potential grazing capacity are calculated according to the relative 

frequency occurrence (Table 1) of the grass species in the various monitoring survey sites on 

Marloth Park. 


This plant community is approximately 22 ha in size, and dominated by broad-leaved 

panicum Panicum deustum from the Decreaser category. The sub-dominant grass species is 

common carrot-seed grass Tragus berteronianus from the Increaser IIc (3) category. The veld 

condition score of 652 (Table 2) indicate that the veld is in good condition. 


Table 1: Frequency occurrence of grass species in the various monitoring sites on Marloth Park 

Grass species 

Decreasers 

Andropogon schirensis 

Brachiaria serrata 

Cenchrus ciliaris 34 

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 

Digitaria eriantha 5 3 8 28 6 4 2 4 1 8 6 

Fingerhurtia africana 

Panicum coloratum 

Panicum deustum 43 17 53 68 52 36 20 70 58 44 48 46 28 18 48 

Panicum maximum 10 4 8 1 8 10 8 4 16 8 6 14 

Panicum natalense 2 

Setaria nigrirostris 

Setaria sphaecelata 

Themeda triandra 

Increasers I (1) 

Trachypogon spicatus 

Hyparrhenia filipendula 

Sporobolus pyramidalis 

Increasers IIa & IIb (2) 

Heteropogon contortus 

Sporobolus fimbriatus 

Bothriochloa insculpta 

Bothriochloa radicans 2 

Dactylotenium aegyptium 2 

Enneapogon cenchroides 

Eragrostis curvula 

Eragrostis gummiflua 

Eragrostis lehmanniana 5 2 4 

Eragrostis plana 

Eragrostis racemosa 

Eragrostis rigidior 

Eragrostis superba 2 1 1 6 

Eragrostis trichophora 

Perotis patens 

Pogonarthria squarrosa 

Schmidtia pappophoroides 2 2 

Sporobolus panicoides 

Trichoneura grandiglumis 

3 

2 

Urochloa mosambicensis 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Increasers IIc (3) 

Aristida adscensionis 13 5 4 16 5 4 10 10 4 10 2 2 8 6 

Aristida bipartita 3 

Aristida congesta var. barbicollis 2 3 2 4 2 

2 

Aristida congesta var. congesta 

Aristida stipitata 

Chloris virgata 

Cynodon dactylon 

Enneapogon scoparius 4 

Melinis repens 

2 

Tragus berteronianus 32 44 24 10 14 10 12 8 14 20 8 32 24 40 

Forbs 

Monitoring survey site number 

4 

1 

1 

2 

4 

2 

2 

10 4 


4 

8 

4 

2 

16 

16 

4 

6 

2

Table 2: Contribution of ecological categories and veld condition scores, 

of the various monitoring survey sites on Marloth Park 

Ecological categories 

Decreasers 

Monitoring survey site number 

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 

58 17 62 84 53 72 70 78 66 62 60 53 82 24 54 

Increasers I (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Increasers IIa & IIb (2) 10 8 7 5 8 9 13 3 11 9 19 7 7 3 3 

Increasers IIc (3) 32 46 29 10 18 14 14 12 16 28 8 34 0 26 40 

Veld condition score 652 248 677 870 580 770 766 804 720 684 684 592 848 278 592 

LEGEND TO COLOUR CODED PLANT COMMUNITIES 

Chloris vigata 

- Acacia grandicornuta Low thicket 

Trichoneura grandiglumis - Combretum apiculatum Short bushland 

Themeda triandra - Acacia nigrescens Low bushland 

Spirostachys africana - Balanites maughami Low bushland 

Dichrostachys cinerea - Tragus berteronianus Low bushland 

Evaluation scale 

Poor 0 - 

Moderate 401 - 

Good 601 - 

400 

600 

1000 


However, although the high Decreaser frequency is encouraging, the high frequency of 

common carrot-seed grass indicates patch selective over-utilisation. The grazing capacity is 

estimated at 5.12 ha per Graze Animal Unit. If all open areas on Marloth Park are accepted as 

suitable habitat for wildlife, 4 GAU (Table 3) can be sustained. If the landscaped garden 

habitats are excluded this plant community can still sustain 4 GAU (Table 4). However, if 

only the parkland and road reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal species, only 

2 GAU (Table 5) can be sustained without further degradation of the environment. 


bushland 


panicum Panicum deustum from the Decreaser category. The sub-dominant grass from the 

same category is Guinea grass Panicum maximum. Other grasses include Lehmann’s love 

grass Eragrostis lehmanniana var. lehmanniana from the Increaser IIa and IIb (2) category, 

and Annual three-awn Aristida adscensionis from the Increaser IIc (3) category. The veld 

condition score of 671 (Table 3) indicate that the veld is in good condition. However, patch- 

selective grazing does occur. The grazing capacity is estimated at 5.02 ha per Graze Animal 

Unit. If all open areas on Marloth Park are accepted as suitable habitat for wildlife, 109 GAU 

(Table 3) can be sustained. If the landscaped garden habitats are excluded this plant 

community can still sustain 88 GAU (Table 4). However, if only the parkland and road 

reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal species, only 47 GAU (Table 5) can be 

sustained without further degradation of the environment. 




same category is Guinea grass Panicum maximum. Other grasses include blue buffalo grass 

Cenchrus ciliaris also from the Decreaser category, and Annual three-awn Aristida 

adscensionis and common carrot-seed grass Tragus berteronianus from the Increaser IIc (3) 

category. The veld condition score of 723 (Table 3) indicate that the veld is in good condition. 

However, patch-selective grazing does occur. The grazing capacity is estimated at 4.77 ha per 

Graze Animal Unit. If all open areas on Marloth Park are accepted as suitable habitat for 

wildlife, 82 GAU (Table 3) can be sustained. If the landscaped garden habitats are excluded 

this plant community can still sustain 67 GAU (Table 4). However, if only the parkland and 

road reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal species, only 35 GAU (Table 5) 

can be sustained without further degradation of the environment. 


Table 3: Grazing capacities for the various plant communities if all open areas 

on Marloth Park is considered suitable habitat for game 

Plant community Unit Veld Grazing capacity Grazing capacity 

size condition cattle game cattle game 

score ha/LSU ha/GAU LSU/unit GAU/unit 

Plant community 1 





22 652 3.58 5.12 6 4 

546 671 3.52 5.02 155 109 

393 723 3.34 4.77 118 82 

390 779 3.17 4.53 123 86 

193 263 6.00 8.58 32 22 

Total 1544 434 304 

Table 4: Grazing capacities for the various plant communities if landscaped 

gardens are excluded from potentially suitable habitat for game 

Plant community 






Unit Veld Grazing capacity Grazing capacity 



18 652 3.58 5.12 5 4 

444 671 3.52 5.02 126 88 

319 723 3.34 4.77 96 67 

317 779 3.17 4.53 100 70 

157 263 6.00 8.58 26 18 

Total 1255 353 247 

Table 5: Grazing 

capacities for the various plant communities if only parkland 

and road reserves are considered suitable habitat for game 

Plant community Unit Veld Grazing capacity Grazing capacity 








9 652 3.58 5.12 3 2 

234 671 3.52 5.02 66 47 

168 723 3.34 4.77 50 35 

166 779 3.17 4.53 52 37 

83 263 6.00 8.58 14 10 

Total 660 185 130 


Plant community 4: The Spirostachys africana – Balanites maughamii Low bushland 



same category are Guinea grass Panicum maximum and blue buffalo grass Cenchrus ciliaris 

also from the Decreaser category. Other grass species includes Annual three-awn Aristida 

adscensionis and common carrot-seed grass Tragus berteronianus from the Increaser IIc (3) 

category. The veld condition score of 779 (Table 3) indicate that the veld is in good condition. 

However, patch-selective grazing does occur. The grazing capacity is estimated at 4.53 ha per 

Graze Animal Unit. If all open areas on Marloth Park are accepted as suitable habitat for 

wildlife, 86 GAU (Table 3) can be sustained. If the landscaped garden habitats are excluded 

this plant community can still sustain 70 GAU (Table 4). However, if only the parkland and 

road reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal species, only 37 GAU (Table 5) 

can be sustained without further degradation of the environment. 


This plant community is approximately 193 ha in size, and dominated by common carrot-seed 

grass Tragus berteronianus from the Increaser IIc (3) category. Although broad-leaved 

panicum Panicum deustum from the Decreaser category is sub-dominant, the presence of 

annual three-awn Aristida adscensionis from the Increaser IIc (3) category indicates over- 

utilisation. The veld condition score of 248 (Table 3) indicate that the veld is in poor 

condition. However, patch-selective grazing does occur. The grazing capacity is estimated at 

8.58 ha per Graze Animal Unit. If all open areas on Marloth Park are accepted as suitable 

habitat for wildlife, 22 GAU (Table 3) can be sustained. If the landscaped garden habitats are 

excluded this plant community can still sustain 18 GAU (Table 4). However, if only the 

parkland and road reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal species, only 10 GAU 

(Table 5) can be sustained without further degradation of the environment. 

Grazing capacity 

The long-term grazing capacities for Marloth Park is based on available habitat, with due 

consideration of environmental restrictions and future development implications. The grazing 

capacity of Marloth Park, if considered that all open areas are considered suitable habitat for 

game is 304 GAU. However, if the landscaped gardens are excluded from this calculation, 

only 247 GAU can be sustained. Worst-case scenario is where only the parkland and road 

reserves are considered suitable habitat for wildlife; in which case only 130 GAU can be 

sustained. 


THE ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE BROWSE AND CALCULATION OF 

INTRODUCTION 

BROWSING CAPACITY 

In a vegetation type such as bushveld, it is of importance not only to estimate available 

grazing, but also available browse, as this component will contribute to the areas ecological 

carrying capacity. Browsers such as kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros and intermediate feeders 

such as impala Aepyceros melampus melampus that utilise both graze and browse resources 

dominate herbivore populations on Marloth Park. Estimation of tree densities can 

furthermore, indicate areas of bush encroachment, where species are known for their invasive 

tendencies. 

In the early days of wildlife ranching, stocking rates were based solely on the forage, dry 

biomass requirements for cattle. Irrespective of their feeding behaviour wild southern African 

herbivores were stocked according to equivalences of Large Stock Units, based on their 

metabolic mass only. New conversion tables, which take different feeding behaviour and 

energy requirements of wild southern African ungulates, additionally to metabolic body mass, 

into consideration were only devised with the development of a technique to measure the 

available browse. With the advent of this technique a Browse Animal Unit was defined. 

Browsing capacity is defined as the number of Browse Animal Units that can be maintained 

in good condition in a certain area, without deterioration of the environment. A Browse 

Animal Unit was subsequently defined as the equivalent of a kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros 

with a body mass of 140 kg, which browses exclusively. Several factors influence the 

browsing capacity. Not only the density of woody plants and their leaf production, but also 

the dominant browser population and their maximum browsing height, as well as the 

accessibility of the leaf material has to be taken into account. To consider these factors total 

browse is differentiated from available browse. Total browse encompasses all potentially 

edible woody plant material, whereas available browse includes only woody plant material 

available to the animals. For most browsers the maximum browse height is limited to 2 m, 

with the exception of giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis and elephant Loxodonta africana that 

can browse to a height of 5.5 m. Another factor is the species composition in each 

homogenous unit, as not all tree species are edible or selected by animals, and many trees 

develop mechanical and/ or chemical defence mechanisms such as thorns or tannins. The 

species composition affects the available browse, as the various species show differing 

phenology in the form of different patterns of leaf-emergence, flowering, fruiting and leaf- 

loss in the course of the year. 


OBJECTIVES 


METHOD 

• Determine the tree density within the different homogenous units. 

• Determine the leaf production and of the various woody species in the 

homogenous units. 

• Determine the available browse and browsing capacity of the different 

homogenous units. 

Due to the factors that determine available browse such as variability in leaf density, 

palatability and tree structure, it is difficult to find a method that combines applicability and 

practicability. Different methods for determining browse have been developed and assessed 

over time. The belt transects have been found to be more accurate and less biased than plot 

surveys – at least in canopy cover estimates for woody vegetation. With the BECVOL model 

it is possible to set up a standard procedure to measure browse potential and browse capacity 

using fairly simply measurements while still obtaining a sufficiently accurate estimation. 

To determine the total volume of woody plant material in this study the BECVOL method is 

applied, where the volumetric dimensions of trees are recorded and related to available leaf 

biomass. The measurements taken are based on an ideal tree, which is regarded as a single 

stemmed sweet thorn Acacia karroo with a canopy consisting of a dome-shaped crown and 

cone-shaped base (Figure 11). These measurements are recorded for each tree rooted and 

identified in a 200 m 2 belt-transect survey. A 2 m long range-rod is used to estimate the tree 

dimensions. 

The data collected is then captured and analysed using the BECVOL programme. Primary 

analysis consists of volumetric calculations to determine the total leaf volume of each tree 

species recorded. The total leaf volume is then related to potential dry leaf mass, based on 

known regression equations from harvested trees. Although common bushveld tree species 

such as sweet thorn Acacia karroo, red bushwillow Combretum apiculatum, sickle bush 

Dichrostachys cinerea, raisin bush Grewia species and silver cluster leaf Terminalia sericea 

have specific regression equations, it was found that a strong correlation exists between some 

of these tree species based on leaf size. Other tree species were thus related to standard 

regression equations based on this phenomenon. For other tree species general regression 

equations are based on either microphyllous (small-leaved) or macrophyllous (broad-leaved) 

tree species. 


X 

Y 

D1 

Y 

Dimensional measurements: 

A - Tree height (m) 

X 

C 

D2 

B - Height of maximum canopy diameter (m) 

C - Height of minimum canopy diameter (m) 

D1 - Maximum canopy diameter (m) 

D2 - Maximum canopy diameter, perpendicular to D1 (m) 

E1 - Minimum canopy diameter (m) 

E2 - Minimum canopy diameter, perpendicular to E1 (m) 

Figure 11: Schematised illustration of an ideal tree and the parameters used to calculate 

browse availability 


B 

A 

E1 

E2

Secondary analysis summarises the derived values for each individual tree species and 

extrapolate the collected data to values for each homogenous unit. The dominance of tree 

species, density and potential dry leaf mass are calculated and expressed per hectare. Tree 

density values are used to assess the level of encroachment based on species dominance, 

while the potential dry leaf mass values are used to determine the available leaf biomass to 

browsing animal species. 

The results obtained from the BECVOL analysis allow for the calculation of potential 

available browse as well as actual available browse. To take the various browsing heights of 

different animal species into account, leaf dry mass is stratified according to maximum 

browse heights of 1.5 m for impala, 2 m for kudu and 5 m for giraffe and elephant. The dry 

leaf mass below 2 m is considered the most important value as it represents the maximum 

browse height of most browse antelope species. The available browse for the different 

maximum browsing heights is derived from multiplying the respective leaf dry mass values 

with the total area of the relevant homogenous unit. Not all leaf material below the specified 

maximum browse height is readily available to browsers, and the following percentages are 

deducted consecutively from the available browse: 

• 50 %, as the core leaf areas of trees are beyond the reach of browsers. 

• 25 %, as trees are also utilised by other animals such as birds and insects. 

• 25 % of the remaining value is deducted to allow for sufficient plant re-growth 

and vigour. 

With the reduced leaf mass value the actual browsing capacity for each unit is calculated. For 

calculating browse capacity the actually available browse is related to the dry leaf 

requirements of one Browse Animal Unit (BAU), where a Browse Animal Unit is equated to 

the metabolic energy requirements of a kudu with a body mass of 140 kg body mass. To 

sustain an animal of this mass, the dry leaf mass intake requirement is approximately 

3 percent of its body mass. A kudu thus ingests 4.2 kg of browse per day, or 1533 kg per year. 

Using these values, the browse capacity can be calculated for each homogenous unit. 



The browsing capacity was estimated from leaf mass production calculated using the 

BECVOL programme. Leaf production was calculated at a maximum browse height of 2 m as 

most animals cannot utilise plant growth beyond this height, with exception of the giraffe 

Giraffa camelopardalis and elephant Loxodonta africana. The potential leaf mass production 

was reduced to actual available leaf mass and divided by the requirements of a Browse 

Animal Unit (BAU) to derive optimum stocking densities. 


This plant community is approximately 390 ha in size, and has a density of 1450 trees per 

hectare. The tree layer is dominated by sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea with 350 trees per 

hectare. The sub-dominant trees are red bushwillow Combretum apiculatum and white raisin 

Grewia bicolor each with 200 trees per hectare. This plant community is not currently 

encroached. The potential leaf biomass production below 2 m is moderate at 300 kg/ha; 

however, only 83 kg/ha is available as browse. If all open areas on Marloth Park are accepted 

as suitable habitat for wildlife, 1 GAU (Table 6) can be sustained. If the landscaped garden 

habitats are excluded, this plant community can still sustain 1 GAU (Table 7). However, if 

only the parkland and road reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal species, no 

animals (Table 8) can be sustained. 


bushland 


hectare. The tree layer is dominated by red bushwillow Combretum apiculatum with 227 trees 

per hectare. The sub-dominant trees are and white raisin Grewia bicolor with 160 trees per 

hectare, giant raisin Grewia hexamita with 147 trees per hectare, sickle bush Dichrostachys 

cinerea with 133 trees per hectare and sandpaper raisin Grewia flavescens with 120 trees per 

hectare. This plant community is not currently encroached, furthermore, the combined density 

of Grewia species act as important food source to browsing animal species as these shrubs 

produce most leaf material below the maximum browse height of 2 m. The potential leaf 

biomass production below 2 m is moderate at 412 kg/ha; however, only 115 kg/ha is available 

as browse. If all open areas on Marloth Park are accepted as suitable habitat for wildlife, 41 

GAU (Table 6) can be sustained. If the landscaped garden habitats are excluded, this plant 

community can still sustain 33 GAU (Table 7). However, if only the parkland and road 

reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal species, only 18 GAU (Table 8) can be 

sustained without further degradation of the environment. 




hectare. The tree layer is dominated by giant raisin Grewia hexamita with 217 trees per 

hectare. The sub-dominant trees are knob thorn Acacia nigrescens, russet bushwillow 

Combretum hereroense and white raisin Grewia bicolour, each with 200 trees per hectare. 

This plant community development is close to the threshold density and should be monitored 

for adverse affects. The potential leaf biomass production below 2 m is moderate at 446 

kg/ha; however, only 125 kg/ha is available as browse. If all open areas on Marloth Park are 

accepted as suitable habitat for wildlife, 32 GAU (Table 6) can be sustained. If the landscaped 

garden habitats are excluded, this plant community can still sustain 26 GAU (Table 7). 

However, if only the parkland and road reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal 

species, only 14 GAU (Table 8) can be sustained without further degradation of the 

environment. 

Plant community 4: The Spirostachys africanus – Balanites maughamii Low bushland 


hectare. The tree layer is dominated by mallow raisin Grewia villosa with 222 trees per 

hectare. The sub-dominant trees are red bushwillow Combretum apiculatum with 178 trees 

per hectare, knob thorn Acacia nigrescens and velvet raisin Grewia flava, each contributing 

156 trees per hectare. This plant community is not currently encroached, but further 

development must be monitored. The potential leaf biomass production below 2 m is 

moderate at 443 kg/ha; however, only 124 kg/ha is available as browse. If all open areas on 

Marloth Park are accepted as suitable habitat for wildlife, 32 GAU (Table 6) can be sustained. 

If the landscaped garden habitats are excluded, this plant community can still sustain 26 GAU 

(Table 7). However, if only the parkland and road reserves are considered as suitable habitat 

for animal species, only 13 GAU (Table 8) can be sustained without further degradation of the 

environment. 



hectare. The tree layer is dominated by sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea with 1500 trees per 

hectare. The only sub-dominant tree is buffalo thorn Ziziphus mucronata with 167 trees per 

hectare. This plant community is severely encroached and active intervention to correct the 

imbalance is recommended. The potential leaf biomass production below 2 m is poor at 201 

kg/ha, with only 56 kg/ha is available as browse. If all open areas on Marloth Park are 

accepted as suitable habitat for wildlife, 7 GAU (Table 6) can be sustained. If the landscaped 

garden habitats are excluded, this plant community can still sustain 6 GAU (Table 7). 


Table 6: Browsing capacities for the various plant communities if all open areas 

on Marloth Park is considered suitable habitat for game 







Unit Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf Browse 

size mass mass mass mass capacity 

potential available potential available 

kg/ha kg/ha kg/unit kg/unit BAU/unit 

22 300 84 6600 1848 1 

546 412 115 224952 62987 41 

393 446 125 175278 49078 32 

390 443 124 172770 48376 32 

193 201 56 38793 10862 7 

Total 1544 113 

Table 7: Browsing capacities for the various plant communities if landscaped 

gardens are excluded from potentially suitable habitat for game 





kg/ha kg/ha kg/unit kg/unit BAU/unit 

Plant community 1 18 300 84 5400 1512 1 





Total 1255 92 

Table 8: Browsing capacities for the various plant communities if only parkland 

and road reserves are considered suitable habitat for game 





kg/ha 

kg/ha kg/unit kg/unit BAU/unit 






Total 660 48 


However, if only the parkland and road reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal 

species, only 3 GAU (Table 8) can be sustained without further degradation of the 

environment. 

Browsing capacity 

The long-term browsing capacities for Marloth Park is based on available habitat, with due 

consideration of environmental restrictions and future development implications. The 

browsing capacity of Marloth Park, if considered that all open areas are considered suitable 

habitat for game is 113 BAU. However, if the landscaped gardens are excluded from this 

calculation, only 92 BAU can be sustained. Worst-case scenario is where only the parkland 

and road reserves are considered suitable habitat for wildlife; in which case only 48 BAU can 

be sustained. 

It is apparent from the woody vegetation analysis that tree density is not the limiting factor in 

available leaf biomass production, but rather tree height. As much of the woody vegetation is 

mature trees it can only be deduced that the leaf biomass produced are now out of reach of the 

browsing animal species. 


INTRODUCTION 

ESTIMATION OF HERBACEOUS BIOMASS PRODUCTION 

The herbaceous biomass of an area refers to the total leaf production of herbaceous vegetation 

such as grasses and forbs. To better compare values from different areas, the biomass is 

usually measured as dry mass per unit area. The extent of total biomass production is highly 

dependent on various environmental factors, of which climate and especially rainfall is 

considered as the most important factor in the arid regions of southern Africa. Estimations of 

leaf dry mass production can also be used to calculate grazing potential of an area. A further 

application of biomass data is found in the field of range management, where biomass is used 

to determine veld condition using the herbaceous phytomass method. However, the most 

important aspect for the measurement of biomass production is the determination of fuel load. 

This information is important to determine the necessity or possibility for veld burning as well 

as the risk for natural fires. Sufficient fuel load to carry a fire is a prerequisite for the 

implementation of a burning regime. The use of fire is considered an important management 

tool on any wildlife area. Firstly, it is useful to remove moribund material and improve the 

palatability of the veld, or keep the veld in a desired stage of succession. Secondly, fire is 

considered a means of bush control, even though its´ use in combating bush encroachment is 

limited. Thirdly, fire is implemented to actively influence animal movement to rest degraded 

veld. Species such as blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus, impala Aepyceros melampus 

melampus, kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros, white rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum and zebra 

Equus burchelli are attracted to recently burned areas. The new growth provides a palatable 

food source that is rich in protein. 

Most methods to determine phytomass production such as the Quadrat Method or Strip 

Mowing Method are based on harvesting a predetermined area at ground level, drying the 

clippings and weighing them. However, these methods are time consuming and labour 

intensive. The Disc-pasture Meter Method is considered a better alternative due to the ease of 

implementation and non-destructive nature. With this method the biomass under a 

standardised area, the disc of the pasture meter, is measured and related to the settling height 

of the disc above ground. 

OBJECTIVES 

The objective of this study is to: 

• Determine the biomass production in the various homogenous units. 


METHOD 

For a representative sample at least 200 readings are taken in every homogenous unit. Within 

these units 10 sites are randomly chosen, where 20 points at 3 m interval are measured with 

the disc pasture meter. The disc pasture meter consists of a hollow aluminium rod that slides 

on the central shaft. At the lower end of the hollow shaft there is an aluminium disc of 

standardised diameter attached. The central shaft carries a scale in cm ranging from 0 to 60. 

To take readings, the central rod of the disc pasture meter is placed perpendicular to the 

ground surface. The hollow rod with the disc is released from the topmost position, a standard 

height of 60 cm above ground, and allowed to settle on the sward. On swards that are 

sensitive to compression, the disc is allowed to settle gently on the grass for a maximum of 15 

seconds, until a constant height is reached. The settling height measurements are recorded and 

the mean disc height calculated in centimetres. The value is then substituted in the following 

equation: 

y = -3019 + 2260 √x 

Where: y = biomass (kg/ha) 

x = mean disc height (cm) 

This equation describes the relation of disc height above ground to the estimated biomass 

production. The equation is applicable for all bushveld areas in the old Transvaal. This result 

is an estimation of the phytomass or fuel load (kg/ha) in each of the Plant communities. These 

values are considered in the burning regime. 

Phytomass can also be used to calculate grazing capacities, based on the daily dry leaf mass 

requirements of a Large Stock Unit, using the following equation: 

SR = (X1 * 0.35 a ) / (10 b * 365 c ) 

Where: SR = Stocking rate in Large Stock Units per hectare (LSU/ha) per year 

X1 = Phytomass in kg/ha 

a = Utilisation degree factor – only 35 % of the biomass is grazed, 

25 % losses occur due to environmental factors and 40 % are left 

over 

b = 10 kg of feed is required to maintain a LSU per day 

c = Number of days per year 


The resulting Large Stock Units are then reduced by 30 percent to compensate for the 

different feeding behaviour of game in comparison to cattle. However, the phytomass method 

is generally only used to obtain an approximation of graze potential, as grass species 

palatability is not considered. 


Disc pasture readings are predominantly used to determine biomass production of the 

herbaceous layer and the necessity to implement a burning regime to remove moribund 

material that can be detrimental to succesional seasonal growth. A minimum of 2000 kg is 

required to carry a burn, while a biomass of more than 4000 kg constitute a fire hazard that 

will be difficult to control. 


This plant community has a dry herbaceous biomass production of approximately 1455 kg/ha, 

and can thus not carry a burn. Although the biomass production in some areas exceeds 1890 

kg/ha, fire is not considered as a management option. 


bushland 


and can also not carry a burn. Biomass production in this plant community varies from 1450 

kg/ha to 2050 kg/ha. The implementation of a fire regime as an applied management principle 

is not currently recommended. 



and can thus carry a burn. Biomass production in this plant community varies from 2000 



Plant community 4: The Spirostachys africanus – Balanites maughamii Low bushland 


and can thus also carry a burn. Biomass production in this plant community varies from 2060 





This plant community has a dry herbaceous biomass production of well below the required 

minimum to sustain a burn. Degradation of the environment and surface erosion of the soil is 

evident, with large areas denuded of herbaceous ground cover. This area cannot sustain a 

burn, and burning is not considered suitable for rehabilitation or manipulation of the 

vegetation structure. 

If it is considered that Marloth Park had not been burned in a number of years, and the 

exception rainfall received during the 2005/2006 season a higher biomass production could be 

expected. However, there is little evidence of biomass accumulation or smothered grass tufts. 

If the denudation and environmental degradation of some areas are to be considered, it must 

be surmised that another factor is currently exerting pressure on this natural resource. 

Herbaceous biomass production is not currently considered to be a hazardous concern; 

however, a runaway fire can still be a destructive force that should not be ignored. Monitoring 

biomass production and implementation of precautionary measures against runaway fires are 

still considered prudent. 


INTRODUCTION 

GAME MANAGEMENT ON MARLOTH PARK 

Game management is the most important aspect when discussing a management plan for a 

wildlife area such as Marloth Park. Manipulating stock will indirectly influence the 

vegetation. This is true for the influence of grazers as well as of browsers. Maintaining veld in 

good condition is a prerequisite for sustainable utilisation, and therefore profitability of any 

wildlife enterprise. No wildlife enterprise, even when focussing on conservation only, will 

survive without making profit to ensure self-sufficiency. Game management is directly 

correlated to the specific objective set for each environment. When concentrating on trophy 

hunting, low stocking rates are required to ensure good quality trophies. In contrast, high 

stocking rates based on the calculated ecological carrying capacity are obligatory for tourism, 

where high animal densities for game viewing are vital. An intermediate stocking rate, 

according to the economic stocking rate, is advised when focussing on venison production. 

Within this range a balance between animal biomass production and quality has to be found. 

Moreover, the restriction of animal movement due to fencing as well as the manipulation of 

predator prey relations, results in the prevention of natural regulative processes such as 

migration and predation. Consequently, man has to take up the role of regulating factor to 

ensure a healthy ecosystem. 

Grazing and browsing capacity potential of the veld is the basis for any management decision, 

as correct stocking rates will ensure the animals’ health as well as maintaining the veld in a 

good productive and re-productive state. Sustained utilisation of the natural resources and 

viable economic returns can be ensured with judicious management. 

Grazing and browsing capacities are functions of the property size. Property size though, is a 

fixed factor. Supplementation of feed can increase the potential for stocking animals, with a 

balance established between extra financial expenditures for feed and benefits or profits from 

higher stocking rates or increased produce. However, social restrictions due to behavioural 

changes as well as increased risk of diseases with increasing herd size are factors that must 

also be considered. Due to the influence on social behaviour, age structure and sex ratio, 

minimum as well as maximum group size will affect the viability and the growth rate of 

animal populations. Further limitations on potential stocking rates are the availability of 

suitable habitat. Habitat requirements also influence the species composition. This is partly 

due to the need for cover, but mostly due to species-specific feeding behaviour and food 

preference. 


Four different feeding classes are distinguished: Bulk or non- to low-selective grazers, 

generally large animals that sustain on coarse grasses with a high content in fibre; concentrate 

or highly selective grazers, generally small animals, which select for certain plant species that 

are high in nutritive value; mixed feeders that utilise grass as well as browse; and browsers 

that predominantly feed on leaves, fruit, flowers and other woody plant components. 

Species composition will influence interspecies interaction such as competition for food 

resources. Interaction can also be positive, such as facilitated feeding behaviour, where due to 

its feeding behaviour a species modify the environment or resource, making it more suitable 

to other feeders that can subsequently utilise the habitat. For instance elephants Loxodonta 

africana destroy tall trees when feeding, but this action stimulate coppicing of damaged trees, 

effectively lowering the tree height. Also buffalo Syncerus caffer with its preference for tall 

grasses reduce the effective height due to grazing action and trampling, making it more 

suitable to species such as blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus that exhibit preference for 

shorter grass species. Blue wildebeest will subsequently be followed by other species such as 

impala Aepyceros melampus melampus that exhibit preference for a short grassland habitat. 

High animal species diversity, as influenced by the plant species composition, makes a system 

more resilient and viable. All these different factors need consideration when managing for 

wildlife. However, management decisions will be directly influenced by Marloth Park’s 

visions and objectives. 

Specific goals set for Marloth Park are to ensure ecosystem viability, despite urban 

development; stocking animals for optimum game viewing, not to generate income from live 

sales and hunting, but the experience of viewing animal interaction in their natural 

environment. The advantage of implementing an ecological management plan is the indirect 

financial benefit derived from harvesting of excess animals for live sales. However, sporadic 

hunting or harvesting to correct sex ratios and age imbalances may also be required. The 

following are guidelines on game management decisions and actions on Marloth Park. 

OBJECTIVES 


• Determine appropriate stocking rates for Marloth Park 

• To consider the implications of development on stocking rates 

• Recommend alternative stocking options 


STOCKING RATES 

Current stocking 

The current stocking rate based on the latest game counts conducted during September 2005 

and the grazing and browsing capacities calculated for Marloth Park are analysed using the 

ECOCAP 6 programme. This programme calculates the percentage contribution of Graze and 

Browse Animal Units based on the potential of Marloth Park to support animal stocking rates, 

without deterioration of the environment. The Graze and Browse Animal Units are based on 

the percentage of graze, browse and forbs in their diet as well as metabolic energy 

requirements of the different animal species. 

Three different scenarios are analysed; the first is based on the assumption that the whole of 

Marloth Park, excluding the current development footprint and actual road surfaces, is 

suitable for utilisation (Table 9). In this scenario only 38.15 percent of the ecological grazing 

capacity is being utilised, but 208.80 percent of the ecological browse capacity. Even though 

the giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis are not considered to be competing for the natural 

resources, as they can feed up to a maximum browse height of 5.5 m, the ecological browse 

capacity will still be exceeded by 25.44 percent. The recommended ratio of 1:1 between the 

low selectivity grazers and the remaining grazers is also skewed, with common impala 

Aepyceros melampus melampus being the dominating contributor at 95.95 percent of the 

ecological capacity. 

In the second scenario the current building footprints, actual road surfaces and landscaped 

gardens are subtracted from the available area (Table 10). Although the ratio of low 

selectivity grazers and other remaining grazers are still skewed, stocking rate is well below 

the ecological grazing capacity. However, the ecological browsing capacity, excluding the 

requirements of giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis, is now exceeded by 54.07 percent; with 

impala Aepyceros melampus melampus still being the dominating contributor. 

In the third scenario only the parkland and current road reserves are available for utilisation 

(Table 11). Although the ratio of low selectivity grazers and other remaining grazers are still 

skewed, the stocking rate is approaching the ecological grazing capacity. However, the 

ecological browse capacity, excluding the requirements of giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis, is 

exceeded by 195.29 percent of the ecological browsing capacity. 

6 ECOCAP. Ecological Capacity computer database for the determination of stocking rates 


Table 9: The current stocking densities, based on the September 2005 game count, if all open areas on Marloth Park 

is accepted as potentially suitable habitat for game 

Type of animal Number of Mean mass Large-animal Browse-animal Equivalent Equivalent Percentage of Percentage of 

Animals of animal units units large-animal browse-animal ecological ecological 

in kg per animal per animal units per group units per group graze capacity browse capacity 

Low selectivity grazers 

Buffalo 0 650 1.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Burchell's zebra 62 300 0.66 0.00 41.17 0.00 13.54 0.00 

White rhinoceros 0 1800 2.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 62 13.54 0.00 

High selectivity grazers 

Blue wildebeest 40 210 0.54 0.00 21.68 0.00 7.13 0.00 

Roan antelope 0 250 0.61 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sable antelope 0 220 0.50 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Tsessebe 0 130 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Waterbuck 0 200 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 40 7.13 0.00 

Mixed feeders 

Common impala 437 55 0.10 0.25 45.17 108.42 14.86 95.95 

Eland 0 500 0.43 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kudu 33 200 0.10 0.80 3.23 26.30 1.06 23.28 

Nyala 0 70 0.12 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Warthog 43 70 0.10 0.12 4.26 5.11 1.40 4.53 

Sub total 513 17.32 123.75 

Browse feeders 

Black rhinoceros 0 900 0.00 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Bushbuck 3 40 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.59 0.02 0.52 

Common duiker 6 20 0.00 0.22 0.01 1.31 0.00 1.16 

Giraffe 22 1000 0.02 4.28 0.40 94.20 0.13 83.36 

Steenbok 0 11 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 31 0.15 85.04 

TOTAL 646 38.15 208.80 


Table 10: The current stocking densities, based on the September 2005 game count, if landscaped gardens are excluded 

from potentially available habitat areas on Marloth Park 





Buffalo 0 650 1.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 



Sub total 62 16.67 0.00 



Roan antelope 0 250 0.61 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 


Tsessebe 0 130 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Waterbuck 0 200 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 40 8.78 0.00 

Mixed feeders 

Common impala 437 55 0.10 0.25 45.17 108.42 18.29 117.85 

Eland 0 500 0.43 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kudu 33 200 0.10 0.80 3.23 26.30 1.31 28.59 

Nyala 0 70 0.12 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Warthog 43 70 0.10 0.12 4.26 5.11 1.72 5.56 

Sub total 513 21.32 152.00 



Bushbuck 3 40 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.59 0.02 0.64 

Common duiker 6 20 0.00 0.22 0.01 1.31 0.00 1.42 

Giraffe 22 1000 0.02 4.28 0.40 94.20 0.16 102.39 

Steenbok 0 11 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 31 0.19 104.45 

TOTAL 646 46.95 256.46 


Table 11: The current stocking densities, based on the September 2005 game count, if only parkland and road reserves 

are accepted as potentially available habitat areas on Marloth Park 





Buffalo 0 650 1.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 



Sub total 62 31.67 0.00 



Roan antelope 0 250 0.61 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 


Tsessebe 0 130 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Waterbuck 0 200 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 40 16.68 0.00 

Mixed feeders 

Common impala 437 55 0.10 0.25 45.17 108.42 34.74 225.88 

Eland 0 500 0.43 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kudu 33 200 0.10 0.80 3.23 26.30 2.49 54.80 

Nyala 0 70 0.12 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Warthog 43 70 0.10 0.12 4.26 5.11 3.28 10.65 

Sub total 513 40.51 291.34 



Bushbuck 3 40 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.59 0.04 1.22 

Common duiker 6 20 0.00 0.22 0.01 1.31 0.01 2.73 

Giraffe 22 1000 0.02 4.28 0.40 94.20 0.31 196.25 

Steenbok 0 11 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 31 0.35 200.20 

TOTAL 646 89.21 491.54 


Recommendations on stocking rates 

Changing stocking rates cannot be based on grazing and browsing capacities only. Other 

factors such as the correct sex ratios, age and social structures as well as habitat and food 

selection are of importance. Sex ratios and age structure will influence the breeding 

performance of the herd, through mating frequency, time spent on courtship or rank fighting. 

Food selection is mainly considered when dividing the species into groups of high and low 

selective grazers. Habitat selection is primarily dependent on food palatability and 

availability, water, cover, and habitat structure. 

SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Low selectivity, bulk grazers 

Buffalo Syncerus caffer Sparrman 1779 

Historic distribution: Sweet and mixed bushveld, fynbos, thicket, lowveld, mopane veld, 

Kalahari and grassland in the southeastern foothills. 

Habitat requirement: Buffalo prefer open savannas characterised by tall grass. They 

avoid trampled areas. Shade and wallows are necessary habitat features. 

Space requirements: Range varies between 50 and 400 km 2 . 

Food preference: Buffalo mainly eat grass and prefer species such as Themeda triandra, 

Panicum coloratum, Panicum maximum and Digitaria species. Occasionally trees and 

bushes of Grewia, Dichrostachys and Combretum species are browsed. 

Water requirements: 31 l/day, water dependent. 

Minimum viable group size: Eight individuals, consisting of three males and five 

females. 

Sex ratio: One male for every 5 to 15 females in the wild. 

Recommendation: Buffalo is considered one of the most effective non-selective grazers, 

with little preference shown for specific grass species; aggressive behaviour, range 

limitations and economic considerations usually exclude this animal from introduction on 

small game areas. However, if this option is considered, a viable breeding population can 

be obtained from the Lionspruit Game Reserve. No buffalo is currently stocked on 

Marloth Park, but introduction can be considered. The best alternatives to stocking 

buffalo are either, Burchell’s zebra or white rhinoceros. 


Burchell's zebra Equus burchelli Gray 1824 

Historic distribution: Sweet and mixed bushveld, mountain or sour bushveld, thicket, 

lowveld, mopane veld, Kalahari and grassland on mountains and the escarpment. 

Habitat requirement: Open savannas and grasslands. 

Space requirements: On wildlife ranches no more than one zebra per 25 ha are 

recommended, where mean annual rainfall ranges from 450 to 550 mm. 

Food preference: Zebra prefer grass that is shorter than 350 mm. They especially like 

Themeda triandra and Cynodon dactylon, which are eaten irrespective of their abundance. 

They will also eat Tribulus terrestris and occasionally browse. 


Minimum viable group size: Seven individuals. 

Sex ratio: 1:6 male to female ratio. 

Recommendation: Keeping zebra on Marloth Park is considered advantageous, as this 

animal is the only relatively inexpensive, bulk grazer suitable for the area. However, these 

animals do exhibit preference for over-grazed areas, and often occur together with 

warthog and impala in the same habitat. Zebra stocking rates should not exceed four 

animals per 100 ha of suitable habitat. The stocking rate of blue wildebeest on Marloth 

Park, based on the September 2005 game count, is 62 animals. 

White rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum Burchell, 1817 

Historic distribution: Sweet and mixed bushveld, Nama karoo, lowveld, mopane veld 

and Kalahari. 

Habitat requirement: White rhinoceros prefer flat savannas with short grasslands. To 

maintain a healthy skin, mud wallows are imperative. 

Space requirements: The minimum space requirements of white rhinoceros are 600 ha. 

Food preference: Short grass, especially Themeda triandra, Panicum maximum, 

Panicum coloratum, Urochloa mosambicensis and Cynodon dactylon. 


Minimum viable group size: Six individuals. 

Sex ratio: In natural conditions a 1:1 sex ratio is observed. For wildlife ranching a 1:4 

male to female ratio is recommended. 

Recommendation: White rhinoceros is considered the most effective bulk grazer. Its 

range requirements, is a limitation for introduction; and aggressive behaviour and 

economic considerations usually excludes this animal from introduction on small wildlife, 

or recreational park areas. No white rhinoceros is currently stocked on Marloth Park, and 

introduction is not advised. 



Blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus Burchell 1823 

Historic distribution: Sweet and mixed bushveld, mountain or sour bushveld, lowveld, 

mopane veld, Kalahari and grassland on the central highveld. 

Habitat requirement: Blue wildebeest need open savannas with trees and shrubs. 

Space requirements: Space requirements of blue wildebeest are 3 km 2 for a herd of 20 to 

30 animals, as the species is territorial. 

Food preference: Blue wildebeest prefer short grass that is not taller than 150 mm. 

Panicum species and Cynodon dactylon are selected for towards end of the dry season. 

Water requirements: 9 l/day, water dependent 

Minimum viable group size: 12 individuals 

Sex ratio: 1:6 to 1:10 male to female ratio. 

Recommendation: This animal species is considered suitable for Marloth Park. Stocking 

density should not exceed seven individuals per 100 ha of suitable habitat. The stocking 

rate of blue wildebeest on Marloth Park, based on the September 2005 game count, is 40 

animals. 

Roan antelope Hippotragus equinus Desmarest 1804 


mopane veld and Kalahari. 

Habitat requirement: Open savannas, medium to tall grasslands and vleis with scattered 

low shrubs. 

Space requirements: Free roaming ranch roan antelope need 600 to 1000 ha for a herd of 

11 animals on a wildlife ranch. 

Food preference: Roan antelope avoid overgrazed area with short grass. They require 

medium to tall grass such as Themeda triandra, Schmidtia pappophoroides and Panicum 

coloratum. Roan antelope also feed on aquatic plants and switch to browse such as Acacia 

species and Rhus pyroides in critical situations. 


Minimum viable group size: A free roaming breeding herd should consist of at least 12 

to 24 animals. 

Sex ratio: 1:10 male to female ratio on a wildlife ranch 

Recommendation: Roan antelope are sensitive to bush encroachment, overgrazing and 

trampling, which might impede the establishment of a viable population. Furthermore, 

roan antelope is density dependant, requiring between 1000 and 2000 ha per breeding 

group. No roan antelope is currently stocked on Marloth Park, and introduction is not 

advised. 


Sable antelope Hippotragus niger Harris 1838 

Historic distribution: Sweet and mixed bushveld, lowveld and mopane veld. 

Habitat requirement: Open savannas with scattered low shrubs bordering vleis, medium 

to tall sweet grassland. 

Space requirements: Sable antelope naturally have a range of 200 to 400 ha and 

establish territories of 25 to 40 ha size. 

Food preference: Sable antelope prefer grass that is 80 to 140 mm tall. Preferred grass 

species are Panicum maximum and Brachiaria nigropedata. Other species include 

Themeda triandra and Urochloa sp. The preferred shrubs and trees are Acacia karroo, 

Dichrostachys cinerea, Dombeya rotundifolia, Grewia flava, Grewia monticola and 

Ziziphus mucronata. 


Minimum viable group size: A free roaming breeding herd should consist of 14 animals 

Sex ratio: In the wild 1:3 male to female ratios develop, whereas a ratio of 1:12 is 

recommended for a wildlife ranch. 

Recommendation: Sable antelope are valuable trophy and life sale animals. No sable 

antelope is currently stocked on Marloth Park, and introduction is not advised, as these 

animals are also sensitive to bush encroachment, overgrazing and trampling. Furthermore, 

sable antelope are especially susceptible to anthrax and can increase the risk to other 

animals on Marloth Park contracting the disease. 

Tsessebe Damaliscus lunatus Burchell 1823 

Historic distribution: Sweet and mixed bushveld, lowveld, mopane veld and Kalahari. 

Habitat requirement: Grassland-bushveld edges, palatable grasses, shade and water in 

areas with few stones. 

Space requirements: Territories from 200 to 400 ha. 

Food preference: Palatable grass. 


Minimum viable group size: 3 to 10 individuals 

Sex ratio: 2:6 male to female ratio 

Comment: Tsessebe is a relatively rare animal that is not currently stocked on Marloth 

Park. Introduction can be considered, however, it must be noted that this antelope is 

demanding in their habitat requirement; bush encroachment is detrimental to the 

establishment of a viable population. Furthermore, artificial water holes will need to be 

naturalized. Stocking density should not exceed seven individuals per 100 ha of suitable 

habitat. Both the Chloris virgata – Acacia grandicornuta Low thicket and Trichoneura 

grandiglumis - Combretum apiculatum Short bushland are considered suitable habitat. 


Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus Ogilby 1833 

Historic distribution: Sweet and mixed bushveld, lowveld and mopane veld. 

Habitat requirement: Open savannas, vleis and floodplains, grasslands. 

Space requirements: Waterbuck have ranges of 150 to 780 ha and establish territories of 

40 to 50 ha size 

Food preference: Waterbuck prefer grasses that are taller than 120 mm. They exhibit 

preference for Cynodon dactylon, Panicum maximum, Digitaria species as well as 

Phragmites australis species. Waterbuck also browse and prefer Acacia tortilis as well as 

the fruit of Sclerocarya birrea. 


Minimum viable group size: 4 to 12 individuals form a breeding herd 


Recommendation: No waterbuck is currently stocked on Marloth Park, based on the 

September 2005 game count. However, suitable habitat do exists in the Themeda triandra 

– Acacia nigrescens Low bushland plant community, and reintroduction of a viable 

breeding population is recommended. These animals are density dependent, requiring 

monitoring of population increase and habitat degradation. 

Mixed feeders 

Common Impala Aepyceros melampus Lichtenstein 1812 



Habitat requirement: Open savannas and heavily utilised areas, Acacia veld. 

Space requirements: The range of impala amount to 200 to 700 ha, territories encompass 

4 to 10 ha. 

Food preference: Impala prefer grasses that are shorter than 150 mm, such as Cynodon 

dactylon, Panicum maximum, Digitaria eriantha as well as Eragrostis, Aristida and 

Urochloa species. For browse, impala prefer tree species such as Acacia, Boscia, 

Combretum, Commiphora and Grewia species as well as Dichrostachys cinerea, 

Terminalia sericea and Ziziphus mucronata. Preferred forbs are Sida cordifolia, 

Waltheria indica and Tephrosia species. 

Water requirements: Impala are water dependent and require 2.5 l/day. They do not 

roam further than 2 km from water. 

Minimum viable group size: The mean breading herd size is 15 to 150 animals. 

Sex ration: 1:3 male to female ratio in the wild, 1:4 to 1:7 ratios recommended for 

wildlife production. 


Recommendation: Impala is a suitable buffer species in areas where leopards are still 

found, and losses of more expensive animals need to be reduced. Stocking density should 

not exceed 12 animals per 100 ha of suitable habitat. On Marloth Park, the availability of 

sufficient browse below the maximum browsing height of 1.5 m is a consideration, 

limiting the number of animals that can be sustained. Futhermore, these antelope exhibit 

preference for degraded areas such as found in the Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus 

berteronianus Low bushland plant community. Based on the September 2005 game 

count, the impala numbers currently stocked on Marloth Park exceeds the maximum 

recommended density. 

Eland Tragelaphus oryx Pallas 1766 

Historic distribution: Sweet and mixed bushveld, mountain or sour bushveld, fynbos, 

succulent karoo, Nama karoo, bushmanland, thicket, lowveld, mopane veld, Kalahari and 

grassland on the central highveld, on mountains and the escarpment and in the south- 

eastern foothills. 

Habitat requirement: Mesic to open arid savannas 

Space requirements: Eland have ranges bigger than 200 km 2 . The minimum 

recommended ranch size is 3000 ha 

Food preference: The most important trees utilised by eland are Acacia species, Albizia 

harveyi, Colophospermum mopane, Combretum apiculatum, Grewia species, Sclerocarya 

birrea, Terminalia sericea species and Ximenia caffra. Grasses are preferred in the wet 

season. Preferred grass species are Chloris virgata, Schmidtia pappophoroides and 

Urochloa mosambicensis. Aristida species are utilised only seldom. 

Water requirements: 23 l/day, not water dependent 

Minimum viable group size: 20 individuals 

Sex ratio: 8 to 12 cows per bull in the wild 

Recommendation: Although eland historically did occur in this area, introduction is 

hampered by property size limitations and the amount of available browse. Current 

reintroduction is thus not recommended, but this option can again be considered if habitat 

manipulation is applied or in the event that the area is enlarged. 

Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros Pallas 1766 


lowveld, mopane veld, Kalahari and grassland on the central highveld and in the 

southeastern foothills. 

Habitat requirement: Open to dense savannas, broken and rocky terrain. 


Space requirements: Kudu have ranges of 90 to 600 ha size. Animal densities should not 

exceed 3 to 4 animals per 100 ha of suitable habitat. 

Food preference: Kudu are browsers and eat many plants avoided by other browsers. 

Preferred tree species include Acacia tortilis, Acacia nigrescens and Combretum 

hereroense early in the growth season, and Dichrostachys cinerea and Combretum 

apiculatum later in the dry season. 

Water requirements: 7 to 9 l/day, water dependent 

Minimum viable group size: Seven individuals 

Sex ratio: In the wild the male to female ratio is 1:2. A sex ration of 1:4 is recommended 

for a wildlife ranch 

Recommendation: The habitat on Marloth Park is considered most suitable for kudu, and 

according to the September 2005 game count, at least 33 animals occur on the property. 

Density limitations are four individuals per 100 ha of suitable habitat, however, browse 

availability is currently a further limitation as much of the browse is above the maximum 

browse height of 2 m. 

Nyala Tragelaphus angasii Gray 1849 

Historic distribution: Lowveld and mopane veld. 

Habitat requirement: Dense shrubs to thickets, riparian thickets, forests and floodplains. 

Space requirements: Nyala have a natural range of 65 to 390 ha. 

Food preference: Nyala are predominantly browsers. However, in summer they mainly 

feed on grass. Preferred tree species are Ziziphus mucronata, Adansonia digitata and 

Acacia species. 

Water requirements: 3.5 l/day, not water dependent 

Minimum viable group size: 12 to 15 individuals 

Sex ratio: In wildlife areas the male to female ratio is 1:2. 

Recommendation: The Nyala is not endemic to the Marloth Park region; however, a 

number of individuals can be found in the Kruger National Park. The nyala competes 

directly with bushbuck for food and habitat resources, and in less dense vegetation such 

as on Marloth Park, seems to out compete the latter. They are aggressive and drive even 

large antelope such as waterbuck out of their habitat. The introduction of nyala is not 

recommended. 


Warthog Phacochoerus africanus Pallas 1766 


lowveld, mopane veld and Kalahari 

Habitat requirement: Warthog preferably utilise open savannas, grasslands, vleis and 

floodplains with short heavily utilised grass but will also utilise open woodland and open 

shrub 

Food preference: Warthog feed on grass, sedges, herbs, shrubs and wild fruits. Preferred 

grass species are Urochloa mosambicensis, Panicum maximum, Panicum coloratum, 

Chloris virgata, Sporobolus nitens and Cynodon dactylon. Warthog love figs and marulas 

Water requirements: 3.5 l/day, not water dependent 

Minimum viable group size: Three animals form a breeding group. 


Recommendation: Warthog utilise every plant community on Marloth Park. Based on 

the September game count, 43 animals are found on Marloth Park. It is recommended that 

population numbers be monitored, as these animals also exhibit preference for the already 

over-utilised habit areas such as found in the Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus 

berteronianus Low bushland plant community. 


Black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis Linnaeus 1758 


Nama karoo, bushmanland, thicket, lowveld, mopane veld, Kalahari, and grassland in the 

southeastern foothills 

Habitat requirement: Black rhinoceros require open to dense savannas where shrubs 

and trees of up to 4 m height prevail. 

Space requirements: Black rhinoceros form territories of 250 to 800 ha. The ranch 

should be at least 3000 to 4000 ha in size. 

Food preference: Black rhinoceros are mainly browsers but occasionally feed on grass. 

Preferred tree species are Acacia, Dichrostachys, Diospyros, Croton, Combretum, 

Commiphora and Grewia species. Black rhinoceros avoid Acacia nigrescens and Ziziphus 

mucronata, as these trees are heavily thorned. Preferred forbs species are Justicia, 

Indigofera and Abutilon species. 


Minimum viable group size: Five individuals. 

Sex ratio: The sex ratio is 1:1 in natural wildlife areas. 


Recommendation: The range requirements of black rhinoceros are a limitation for 

introduction; and aggressive behaviour and economic considerations usually excludes this 

animal from introduction on small wildlife, or recreational park areas. No black 

rhinoceros is currently stocked on Marloth Park, and introduction is not advised. 

Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus Pallas 1766 

Historic distribution: Sweet and mixed bushveld, mountain or sour bushveld, forest, 

thicket, lowveld and mopane veld. 

Habitat requirement: Riparian thicket, other dense shrub and brush near permanent 

water. 

Space requirements: Range size measures from 3 to 175 ha 

Food preference: Bushbucks are mainly browsers and prefer Acacia tortilis as well as 

Combretum, Ximenia and Ziziphus species. Bushbuck occasionally feed on grass species 

such as Panicum maximum, Cynodon dactylon and Eragrostis superba. 

Water requirements: 1.5 l/day, water dependent 

Minimum viable group size: Ten individuals 

Sex ratio: 2 to 3 females per male in natural conditions 

Recommendation: Bushbuck is well adapted to the Themeda triandra – Acacia 

nigrescens Low bushland and Spirostachys africana – Balanites maughamiii Low 

bushland habitat on Marloth Park. Although the September 2005 game count only 

recorded three individuals, it must be accepted that this shy animal in all likelihood occur 

in much higher numbers as aerial game counts is notoriously inaccurate where these 

animals are concerned. These antelope are density dependent and further management 

intervention is not required. 

Common duiker Sylvicapra grimmia Linnaeus 1758 


succulent karoo, Nama karoo, bushmanland, forest, thicket, lowveld, mopane veld, 

Kalahari and grassland on the central highveld, on mountains and the escarpment and in 

the southeastern foothills; throughout South Africa. 

Habitat requirement: Common duiker requires thickets, savannas and woodlands that 

provide shade and cover. They preferably occur in ecotones. 

Space requirements: Common duiker has a range between 1.9 and 3.8 ha in size. 

Stocking rates are recommended at about 4 ha per animal 

Food preference: Common duikers are browsers. They feed on twigs, flowers and fallen 

fruit, especially of Solanum species. Occasionally common duiker also feeds on grasses 

and forbs. 


Water requirements: 1 l/day, not water dependent 

Minimum viable group size: 6 to 10 animals 

Sex ratio: 1:1 in natural conditions 

Recommendation: As with bushbuck, this relatively shy antelope is difficult to count 

using aerial game counts. However, six individuals were recorded during the September 

2005 game count. These antelope are density dependent and self-regulatory; further 

management intervention is not required. 

Giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis Linnaeus 1758 



Habitat requirement: Arid to mesic savannas 

Space requirements: Giraffe have a range from 20 to 160 km 2 in size. The minimum 

required ranch size is 1500 ha and stocking rates should not exceed one giraffe per 200 

ha. 

Food preference: Giraffe are predominantly browsers and feed on Acacia, Combretum, 

Terminalia and Ziziphus species. The most important species in the giraffes´ diet are 

Acacia caffra, Acacia karroo, Combretum apiculatum, Combretum hereroense, 

Combretum imberbe and Dichrostachys cinerea. In dry months giraffe turn to evergreens 

such as Gymnosporia and Diospyros species, to the fruit of Acacia and Combretum 

species and to flowers of Acacia nigrescens. 

Water requirements: 40 l/day, not water dependent. 

Minimum viable group size: Mean group size 5.7 animals 


Recommendation: The habitat on Marloth Park is well suited for giraffe, and based on 

the September 2005 game count, 22 individuals occur on the property. As these animals 

generally browse up to a height of 5.5 m, leaf biomass production is not a limiting factor. 

Home range, however, can be a limiting factor. 

Steenbok Raphicerus campestris Thunberg 1811 


succulent karoo, Nama karoo, bushmanland, lowveld, mopane veld, Kalahari and 

grassland on the central highveld. 

Habitat requirement: Steenbok require open savannas and grasslands that are 

characterised by lumps of scattered tall grass lumps and low shrubs. 

Space requirements: Steenbok establish a territory of 30 ha in size. 


Food preference: Steenbok utilise Acacia nigrescens, Grewia species, Boscia albitrunca, 

Terminalia sericea, Ziziphus mucronata as well as the fruit of Grewia flavescens, 

Ximenia caffra and Solanum species. Steenbok also utilise grasses to a small degree. 

Water requirements: Not water dependent. 

Minimum viable group size: Due to overlapping ranges steenbok develop natural 

densities of 7 to 20 animals per hectare. 

Sex ratio: 1:1 in natural conditions 

Recommendation: This small antelope is also density dependant, and although none had 

been recorded during the September 2005 game count, it can be accepted that these 

animals do occur on Marloth Park. Steenbok are habitat specific and self-regulatory. No 

active management intervention is required. 

STOCKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MARLOTH PARK 

It is important to correct the different feeding category ratios on Marloth Park, as the 

feeding behaviour of one animal, in effect, modifies the environment so that it becomes 

more suitable to other animals from a different feeding category. The current non- 

selective or bulk grazer category is well below the 50 percent of ecological grazing 

capacity guideline, and it is recommended that this be rectified. Considering that Marloth 

Park is an open township with no current access control through the area, the introduction 

of buffalo Syncerus caffer or white rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum are not 

recommended. Both species can be considered dangerous and high-risk animals. The 

security risk also excludes the introduction of roan antelope Hippotragus equinus and 

sable antelope Hippotragus niger, despite suitable habitat on Marloth Park. The current 

high stocking rate of impala Aepyceros melampus melampus is also an undesirable 

competitive factor. Introduction of viable populations are also cost inhibitive. The 

introduction of any animals that require browse as part of their diet are also not 

recommended, as this will only exacerbate the current degradation of available resources. 

The introduction of eland Taurotragus oryx or nyala Tragelaphus angasii is not currently 

recommended, as both will exert undue pressure on the natural resources available. 

Furthermore, the introduction of nyala will be detrimental to the health and survival of the 

bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus population. The introduction of eland and tsessebe 

Damaliscus lunatus lunatus can, however, be reconsidered if the impala population is 

drastically reduced and the veld given a number of years to recover it health and vigour. 


Three different scenarios are analysed; the first is based on the assumption that the whole 

of Marloth Park, excluding the current development footprint and actual road surfaces, is 

suitable for utilisation (Table 12); second that the current building footprints, actual road 

surfaces and landscaped gardens are subtracted from the available area (Table 13); and 

third that only the parkland and current road reserves are available for utilisation (Table 

14). 

If it is considered that stocking densities for Burchell’s zebra Equus burchelli should not 

exceed four animals per 100 ha of suitable habitat, blue wildebeest Connochaetes 

taurinus seven animals per 100 ha, common impala Aepyceros melampus melampus 12 

animals per 100 ha, and kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros three animals per 100 ha, the 

following stocking options can be applied. 

In the first scenario (Table 12), the optimum stocking density of Burchell’s zebra has 

been reached and no active intervention is required in manipulating the animal numbers. 

This will place Marloth Park on a 13.54 percent non-selective graze utilisation that leaves 

a deficit of 36.46. As the introduction of other animal species to fill this niche is not 

currently recommended, their impact on the vegetation need be simulated applying 

accepted ecological management principles. In the high selectivity category the current 

stocking density of blue wildebeest can be increased to 108 individuals. In the mixed 

feeder category, however, the impala stocking density must be reduced to 185 animals. 

The kudu from the same category can be increased to 46 animals. The giraffe from the 

browse feeder category also need to be reduced to seven animals, because of range 

requirements. If these numbers are exceeded the giraffe population must be monitored for 

any deviant behaviour, and the vegetation monitored for undesirable change such as 

hourglass formations. Applying these recommendations will ensure a 42.03 percent 

utilisation of the potential ecological graze capacity and a 78.28 percent utilisation of the 

potential ecological browse capacity, excluding the giraffe utilisation. 

In the second scenario (Table 13), the optimum stocking density for Burchell’s zebra is 50 

individuals, in which case 12 animals need to be removed from Marloth Park. In the high 

selectivity category the current stocking density of blue wildebeest can be increased to 88 

individuals. In the mixed feeder category, however, the impala stocking density must be 

reduced to 150 animals. The kudu from the same category can be increased to 38 animals. 

The giraffe from the browse feeder category also need to be reduced to six animals, 

because of range requirements. 


Table 12: The potential stocking densities if all open areas on Marloth Park is accepted as suitable habitat for game 





Buffalo 0 650 1.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 



Sub total 62 13.54 0.00 



Roan antelope 0 250 0.61 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 


Tsessebe 0 130 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Waterbuck 0 200 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 108 19.26 0.00 

Mixed feeders 

Common impala 185 55 0.10 0.25 19.12 45.90 6.29 40.62 

Eland 0 500 0.43 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kudu 46 200 0.10 0.80 4.51 36.67 1.48 32.45 

Nyala 0 70 0.12 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Warthog 43 70 0.10 0.12 4.26 5.11 1.40 4.53 

Sub total 274 9.17 77.59 



Bushbuck 3 40 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.59 0.02 0.52 

Common duiker 6 20 0.00 0.22 0.01 1.31 0.00 1.16 

Giraffe 7 1000 0.02 4.28 0.13 29.97 0.04 26.52 

Steenbok 0 11 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 16 0.06 28.20 

TOTAL 460 42.03 105.80 


Table 13: The potential stocking densities if landscaped gardens are excluded from available habitat areas on Marloth Park 





Buffalo 0 650 1.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 



Sub total 50 13.44 0.00 



Roan antelope 0 250 0.61 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 


Tsessebe 0 130 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Waterbuck 0 200 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 88 19.31 0.00 

Mixed feeders 

Common impala 150 55 0.10 0.25 15.50 37.22 6.28 40.45 

Eland 0 500 0.43 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kudu 38 200 0.10 0.80 3.72 30.29 1.51 32.92 

Nyala 0 70 0.12 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Warthog 43 70 0.10 0.12 4.26 5.11 1.72 5.56 

Sub total 231 9.51 78.93 



Bushbuck 3 40 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.59 0.02 0.64 

Common duiker 6 20 0.00 0.22 0.01 1.31 0.00 1.42 

Giraffe 6 1000 0.02 4.28 0.11 25.69 0.04 27.93 

Steenbok 0 11 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 15 0.07 29.99 

TOTAL 384 42.33 108.92 


Table 14: The potential stocking densities if only parklands and road reserves are accepted 

as available habitat areas on Marloth Park 





Buffalo 0 650 1.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 



Sub total 26 6.99 0.00 



Roan antelope 0 250 0.61 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 


Tsessebe 0 130 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Waterbuck 0 200 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 46 10.09 0.00 

Mixed feeders 

Common impala 79 55 0.10 0.25 8.17 19.60 3.31 21.31 

Eland 0 500 0.43 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kudu 20 200 0.10 0.80 1.96 15.94 0.79 17.33 

Nyala 0 70 0.12 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Warthog 43 70 0.10 0.12 4.26 5.11 1.72 5.56 

Sub total 142 5.82 44.19 



Bushbuck 3 40 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.59 0.02 0.64 

Common duiker 6 20 0.00 0.22 0.01 1.31 0.00 1.42 

Giraffe 4 1000 0.02 4.28 0.07 17.13 0.03 18.62 

Steenbok 0 11 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 13 0.05 20.68 

TOTAL 227 22.96 64.87 


Applying these recommendations will ensure a 42.33 percent utilisation of the potential 

ecological graze capacity and 80.99 percent utilisation of the potential ecological browse 

capacity, excluding the giraffe utilisation. 

In the third scenario (Table 14), the optimum stocking density for Burchell’s zebra is 26 

individuals, in which case 36 animals need to be removed from Marloth Park. In the high 

selectivity category the current stocking density of blue wildebeest can be increased to 46 

individuals. In the mixed feeder category, however, the impala stocking density must be 

reduced to 79 animals. The kudu from the same category must be reduced to 20 animals. The 

giraffe from the browse feeder category also need to be reduced to four animals, because of 

range requirements. Applying these recommendations will ensure a 22.96 percent utilisation 

of the potential ecological graze capacity and 46.25 percent utilisation of the potential 

ecological browse capacity, excluding the giraffe utilisation. Better utilisation of the natural 

resources can only be achieved by increasing animal species diversity. 

The first scenario is not a true reflection of the available habitat, especially during drought 

and winter periods, while the third scenario is considered extreme in application. It is thus 

recommended that the second scenario be used as a template for stocking animals on Marloth 

Park. The landscape garden areas, subtracted from this option, can then act as a resource 

reservoir during periods of extreme feeding stress. Applying this option has little impact on 

most animal species, with exception of the impala and giraffe populations that should be 

reduced to 150 and 6 animals, respectively. However, although the reduction in impala 

numbers is considered compulsory, the giraffe numbers can be stocked at a higher level 

(Table 15). Even while conceding to a stocking density of 12 giraffe on Marloth Park, this 

action must be closely monitored for any adverse effects. Exceeding the stocking density of 

12 giraffe is not recommended. In an attempt to improve utilisation, tsessebe Damaliscus 

lunatus lunatus and waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus can be introduced as minimum viable 

populations and allowed to increase naturally. Although eland can also be introduced, it is 

recommended that this option not be applied before some sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea 

control and reclamation measures has not been successfully implemented on Marloth Park. 

An alternative option that can be used to increase stocking densities is by supplementary 

feeding of animals; however, this practice is not an ecologically viable proposition. 


Table 15: The recommended stocking densities of animals on Marloth Park 





Buffalo 0 650 1.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 



Sub total 50 13.44 0.00 



Roan antelope 0 250 0.61 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 


Tsessebe 8 130 0.35 0.05 2.84 0.38 1.15 0.41 

Waterbuck 6 200 0.50 0.07 3.00 0.39 1.22 0.43 

Sub total 102 21.68 0.84 

Mixed feeders 

Common impala 150 55 0.10 0.25 15.50 37.22 6.28 40.45 

Eland 12 500 0.43 1.56 5.19 18.71 2.10 20.33 

Kudu 38 200 0.10 0.80 3.72 30.29 1.51 32.92 

Nyala 0 70 0.12 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Warthog 43 70 0.10 0.12 4.26 5.11 1.72 5.56 

Sub total 243 11.61 99.27 



Bushbuck 3 40 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.59 0.02 0.64 

Common duiker 6 20 0.00 0.22 0.01 1.31 0.00 1.42 

Giraffe 12 1000 0.02 4.28 0.22 51.38 0.09 55.85 

Steenbok 0 11 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sub total 21 0.11 57.91 

TOTAL 416 46.84 158.02 


SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDING 

The main objective of supplementary feeding is to supplement deficiencies, as well as to 

stimulate the appetite of the grazing animals to ensure better utilisation of poor quality foraging 

material. It is common for certain areas to have deficiencies in minerals and these deficiencies 

can affect animal productivity. Originally game was able to move freely over large areas to select 

the most nutritious food, but due to the animals being restricted by fences it has become 

necessary to provide supplements. 

The nutritional value of grass species, particularly in the Sourveld regions, decreases 

considerably as the grass matures, especially in autumn and winter. This is associated with the 

deterioration in the condition of the animals. 

DIGESTIBILITY 

The digestibility of the organic matter is one of the main factors determining the nutritive value 

of forage. A high digestibility is maintained in the spring and this declines as the plant matures 

over the summer due to changes in the chemical composition of the plant. The rate of this 

decline varies between grass species. 

The basic determinant of forage digestibility is the plant anatomy. Plant cell contents, being 

mainly carbohydrates and proteins, are almost completely digestible, but cell walls vary in 

digestibility according to their degree of reinforcement with lignin. As plants grow there is a 

greater need for fibrous tissues and therefore the main structural carbohydrates and lignin 

increase. However, the concentration of protein decreases as the plant ages. Thus digestibility 

decreases as plants increase in maturity. There is a reciprocal relationship between the protein 

and fibre contents in a given species. 

PROTEIN CONTENT 

Protein is most probably the most common chemical component that limits animal performance, 

provided sufficient energy is supplied. Protein requirements of animals depend on the species 

and class of animal and on the level of production. 

A minimum figure of 5 percent crude protein in natural pastures is generally required for 

ungulates on African veld, whereas 8 percent crude protein is necessary in the vegetation for 

livestock. This indicates that game can cope better than livestock in poorer veld conditions. 

Protein content varies among different forage species and generally declines with maturity. In 

general the leaves of trees and shrubs seasonally provide a more constant and higher level of 

protein than the grasses. 


The proteins may be less available if one considers that the leaves also contain tannins, alkaloids 

and other compounds, which can interfere with digestibility. The leaves of trees have less 

cellulose and hemi-cellulose than grasses. Due to the fact that there is seasonal loss and change of 

leaves, the chance that browsers could experience an energy shortage at certain times of the year 

is greater than for grazers. 

TYPES OF SUPPLEMENTATION 

There are three main types for supplementation: minerals, protein and energy supplementation. 

For all the supplementary licks, salt forms a substantial component. Salt not only attracts the 

animals to the licks but also limits voluntary intake. It is important that the animals be exposed 

to saltlicks before other supplements are used. This ensures that they overcome salt hunger thus 

reducing the chance of the animals abusing licks and having an overdose. Cattle licks are 

sometimes not acceptable for game, but if the licks are placed near salt licks, game will utilise 

them. 

Mineral supplementation 

Depressed growth or ill-health can occur in grazing animals due to deficiencies in some of the 

macro-elements such as sulphur, calcium, phosphorous, sodium and magnesium. Deficiencies in 

the trace elements are difficult to detect because often the only effect on the animal is reduced 

growth and reduced fertility. 

The method of supplementation of a particular mineral depends to a large extent whether or not 

the mineral is stored in the body. Cobalt, copper, selenium, manganese and zinc are stored in a 

number of tissues and in the liver. Supplementation with these minerals thus need only be at 

intervals. Molybdenum and iodine are not stored in the body so supplementation should be daily. 

Salt licks are successful for mineral supplementation. The intake of minerals is regulated because 

animals apparently regulate their own intake of salt. 

The most common mineral deficiencies in South Africa are phosphorous and calcium 

deficiencies. Mineral supplements are in the form of dicalcium phosphate, bone meal, 

monocalcium phosphate or monosodium phosphate. These can be given in a lick. 

A mineral lick can for example consist of: 

• 30 kg bone meal, 30 kg salt and 15 kg molasses, or 

• 45 kg dicalcium phosphate, 45 kg salt, and 15 kg molasses 


Mineral deficiencies are constant and therefore should not only be supplemented in winter. The 

soil type, rainfall and vegetation type of the area determines these deficiencies. The 

supplementation should be available for 12 months of the year. 

Protein supplementation 

For levels below the minimum requirements of protein, supplementation will usually be 

necessary, particularly in autumn and winter months when the protein content of the veld and 

some summer grass pastures are inadequate. Physical limitations to the intake of the forage itself 

cannot be overcome by supplementation. Protein supplementation increases the rate of digestion, 

increases the rate of passage of digesta and can provide an additional source of amino acids at the 

tissues. Its net effect is one of increasing forage intake. 

In South Africa the most important protein supplements used are peanut, sunflower and 

cottonseed oil cake meals, fishmeal, whale meal, carcass meal and blood meal. Non- 

proteinaceous nitrogen (NPN) licks are also used to improve the utilisation of low digestible 

crude foods. NPN sources are urea and biuret. NPN licks provide the urea that is broken down 

to provide materials for the rumen flora. When they die they are broken down to provide a 

source of protein. NPN licks are cheaper than protein licks. 

Urea and biuret can be incorporated into mineral licks and lick blocks. Urea poisoning can easily 

occur with an overdose. These licks usually contain dicalcium phosphate, a salt, making up 40 to 

60 percent of the mass. The salt can limit or encourage the ingestion of urea. Urea can be mixed 

with molasses syrup in order to reduce the chance of poisoning. Molasses and yellow corn meal 

are added to make the lick palatable enough so that the minimum urea is ingested. 

A successful method of supplementing urea for cattle is by incorporating it in dry mineral licks, 

for example incorporating 25 percent of each of the following: 

• dicalcium phosphate 

• salt 

• urea 

• corn meal 

However, licks must not contain more than 5 percent urea for game. Thus, the salt concentration 

should be increased and the urea concentration decreased when making the lick. 


When urea is incorporated into a phosphate-salt lick, it is necessary to determine whether the 

animals are suffering from salt hunger and what percentage salt should be incorporated into the 

lick to limit intake. It is important that the animals must first be exposed to a phosphate-salt lick. 

This will ensure that they do not have salt hunger and hence the danger of urea poisoning. The 

use of Biuret cancels the chance of poisoning; however, it is more expensive. Rumevite licks, 

which consists of a mixture of corn meal, dicalcium phosphate, urea, dry molasses, salt and trace 

elements, provide preventative measures against urea poisoning. Similar lick blocks can be 

made, using the following percentages: 

• dicalcium phosphate or bone meal 20 

• corn meal 10 

• salt 50 

• urea 5 

• molasses 15 

• Lucerne meal 5 

Protein licks should be available for 4 to 8 months of the year, corresponding with the dry season 

and forage quality. 

Energy supplementation 

Energy production by animals requires carbohydrates. Additional carbohydrates can be obtained 

from supplementary feeding. Almost all grains and their by-products can be used as a basis for 

energy-rich licks. Corn meal is the most important source of energy. Other sources are bran, 

oats, molasses and corn germ meal. Voluntary increase in ingestion is increased with energy-rich 

licks. Energy-rich licks are usually combined with the protein licks. They should be available for 

4 to 8 months, depending on the forage quality. 

The main objective of supplementary winter-feeding is thus to supplement deficiencies and to 

stimulate the appetite of the grazing animal so that poorer grazing is utilised more effectively. 

Appetite-stimulating licks with a urea or protein base are preferred above supplementary energy- 

rich feeds as a supplement to natural grazing. 

Summer licks supply mainly phosphate, calcium and vitamin-A, and can contain trace elements 

such as copper, cobalt, iodine, manganese, zinc and magnesium. 


Energy in the form of Kalori 3000 serves mainly as a binding medium and improves the 

palatability of the lick. Winter licks contain energy, sometimes proteins, urea, phosphate, 

calcium, sometimes trace elements and often vitamin-A. The form and composition of licks 

varies between game types, but in general licks are presented in the form of blocks, food pellets 

or energy food mixture in meal form. 

The best alternative is to manage the veld well, so that no supplementary feeding is necessary. If 

supplementary feeding is required the following can be used in early winter and for the duration 

of winter: 

• In sourveld: 50 percent salt, 25 percent bone meal or dicalcium phosphate, 20 percent K-3000 

molasses and 5 percent urea. 

The amount of supplementation is dependent on the size of the animal and physiological 

condition. Only prescribed amounts of licks must be ingested. 

Recommendations for Marloth Park 

Salt licks should be available for the entire year on an ad-lib basis. 

Mineral supplementation should be combined with a salt lick. South Africa has a deficiency in 

phosphorous and calcium. A phosphate-salt lick is the best option. Mineral supplementation 

should be available throughout the year. 

Protein licks should be available for 4 to 8 months of the year, corresponding with the dry season 

and forage quality. These licks should be available from May to September. Energy-rich licks 

are usually combined with the protein licks. They should be available for 4 to 8 months, 

depending on the forage quality. Energy-rich licks should be placed out from May to September. 

Protein as well as the carbohydrates for the energy-rich licks can be incorporated into the 

phosphate-salt lick. Thus, protein and energy supplementation can be combined with the salt and 

mineral supplementation in winter. 

Two manufacturers of supplementary feeding blocks are Voermol and Kynoch Feeds 7 . A protein 

supplement, Voermol Game Block, can be purchased at any agricultural co-operation. This lick 

has the advantage of being a protein, energy, mineral and trace element supplement for game; it 

does not contain urea; and it prevents weight loss and increases production. 

7 Kynoch Feeds (Pty) Ltd, P O Box 4880, Randburg. Tel: (011)787 0419 


Recommended intake for game is 150 to 250 g per 50 kg body mass, while lactating animals can 

ingest 170 to 350 g per 50 kg body mass per day. Safari feeds 8 is also manufacturers of summer 

licks and winter licks that can contain remedies to control internal and external parasites. The 

following products are available: 

• Safari parasite lick 

• Safari anti-tannin block 

• Safari energy block 

• Safari phosphate block 

Further supplementation can be achieved by feeding game or even horse cubes to animals. 

However, this must be seen as supplementation only as this feed is not a constant resource and 

cannot substitute the natural ingestion of roughage. This will thus not affect the number of 

animals that can be sustained on Marloth Park. If the objective is to sustain more animals on 

Marloth Park by feeding intensively, both energy in the form of game cubes and roughage in the 

form of lucern or hay must be supplied. The requirements of single Graze Animal Unit are 

approximately 2.5 kg of cubes per day and 8 to 10 kg of lucern or hay. This equates to 18 bags of 

cubes and 260 bales of lucern or hay per year. 

Placement of licks 

The placement of licks is important. Lick containers must be distributed at strategic points in 

the veld, so that animals do not concentrate on certain places. The licks should be spread out 

across the entire area so that all game species have access to the licks and they should be near 

water. Licks must not be placed in over-utilised veld, because it promotes veld degradation. 

Licks can be placed in unpalatable areas so that unpalatable plants can be utilised to increase 

the utilisation of the veld. In wildlife ranching, licks can be used to encourage a form of 

rotational grazing among game. The licks should be protected from the weather as toxicity 

may occur if rain accumulates in hollows of the lick and dissolves toxic quantities of the 

mineral. Lick containers, especially those containing urea must be protected from rain. If 

nitrogen or protein licks are provided, they must not be put near watering places. The licks 

should be protected from the weather as toxicity may occur if rain accumulates in hollows of 

the lick and dissolves toxic quantities of the mineral. The licks are placed in an inverted truck 

tyre. They should have a cement base so that the licks are not in contact with the soil. If the 

lick is placed directly on the soil leaching of the nutrients from the lick may also occur, 

causing irreparable damage to the soil. 

8 Safari Feeds, Rust de Winter. Tel: (012) 711 0841 


Licks can also be used to attract the animals to more accessible areas in order to view them 

easily. Owners in Marloth Park currently supply supplementary feed injudiciously to animals. 

Although this practice is not condoned, the complete cessation by owners is unlikely and an 

attempt at control is potentially more effective. It is recommended that owners be informed of 

the correct feeding regime for supplementation, and where possible these products be made 

available to them. Lick containers can be manufactured and sold to the owners, with 

instructions as to when to feed which product. 

The following can be used as guidelines: 

• Never place licks in already degraded areas, as this will only exacerbate the situation 

• Always use a lick container to limit leaching of the product into the soil 

• Never place the lick container too close to water as toxicity can occur 

• Salt licks can be supplied throughout the year 

• Protein licks can be supplied from May to September 

• Energy-rich licks can be supplied from May to September 

• Antelope cubes can be supplied throughout the year 

• Be aware that this practice can make animals dependant on the food source and 

cessation of supply can have dire health implications 

• Grass seed enriched licks can also be used to facilitate veld recovery and improve 

veld condition, as described in the section on reclamation procedures. 

No lick blocks should be placed in the degraded Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus 

berteronianus Low bushland plant communities. 

DISEASES AND PARASITE CONTROL 

Diseases, parasites and preventative disease and parasite management are an integral part of 

wildlife management. Normally, healthy wild animals harbor nematode and tick burdens 

exceeding several thousand, however, the majority of these parasites cause little damage in 

the immature stage. It is generally only when the adult parasites occur in large numbers that 

problems arise. Massive increases in parasite numbers can occur on small reserves, if high 

stocking rates are maintained. 


Ticks 

The main parasite of concern is ticks, as larger mammal species harbour both immature and 

adult ticks. The high infestation can be detrimental to the health of the animal, by causing 

anaemia, reducing the condition of the animal and decrease resistance to other diseases. 

Parasites can be controlled by means of biological, management and chemical control. 

Management control is where sick and injured animals that act as reserve for tick infestations 

are removed from the population. By applying conservative stocking rate, feeding stress is 

reduced and consequently, susceptibility to high tick infestations. Chemical control is where 

tick infestations are treated using acaricides. Effective control can be achieved with sprayed 

on or pour-on dips. Alternatively a lick that contains alum seems to work efficiently in 

controlling high tick infestations on animals. The alum lick can be mixed using two bags of 

coarse salt, 500 g alum dissolved in 10 L of water, one bag of bone meal and one bag of K- 

3000 molasses. The best time to treat tick infestations is during January and February when 

the adult ticks of most species are abundant and active. Distribution of these licks must be 

throughout Marloth Park. 

Nematodes 

Nematodes are internal worms that can affect the health of an animal. Anthelminthic, or 

deworming licks are available from Safari Feeds. These licks can be supplied to the animals 

during winter. It is recommended that deworming licks be supplied for 2 to 4 weeks during 

July, as the majority of worms are over-wintering in the host during this period. Distribution 

of these licks must be throughout Marloth Park. 


VELD MANAGEMENT ON MARLOTH PARK 

ENDANGERED, VULNERABLE AND RARE PLANT MANAGEMENT 

The maintenance and survival of South Africa’s diverse endemic plant species is in severe 

jeopardy due to increased land transformations and modifications. The quantitative extent of 

these changes and the effect on the different ecosystems is difficult to determine. For many 

years most efforts of conservation have focused on the preservation of individual indicator 

species, but increasing emphasize is placed on the preservation of ecosystems and landscapes. 

Preservation on the ecosystem level is considered the only process that will ensure the 

conservation of habitats together with their constituent species. Threatened species are 

considered useful indicators of the health of an ecosystem. Endangered plants are considered 

to be species in danger of extinction, while vulnerable plants are considered to move into the 

endangered category in the near future. Rare plants are considered small world populations 

that are not presently endangered or vulnerable. These rare plants are usually localized within 

geographical areas or thinly scattered over an extensive range. 

At least one potentially endangered individual of Cyphostemma or Cissus is found on Marloth 

Park, but the presence of other individuals has not yet been confirmed. These plant families 

are currently under taxonomic revision, but all indications are that this plant is currently not 

described. Classification is based on the inflorescence. A single individual (Figure 12) has 

been found in the park area between plot number 1813 and 1814, off Seekoei Road. 

It is apparent that this plant species has preferences for poor shallow soils and rocky quartz 

substrate. The plant is usually single stemmed, and about 0.5 m high. The stem is typical of 

the Vitaceae family, green, succulent and has a papery layer that is continually peeling. Also 

indicative of this family is the tendrils that are used to attach to other plants and keep it 

upright or creeping over other vegetation. Single succulent leaves are found, with a spiral 

distribution on the stem, on each enlarged node. The leaves are palmate (five fingered) and 

fan shaped, each leaflet being approximately 50 to 100 mm long and 10 to 25 mm wide. The 

leaves are highly serrated or toothed, folded semi-closed along the single mid vein, and bend 

backwards. The inflorescence resembles fine coral as it turns a bright red before bearing fruit. 

The fruits are presumed to be a relatively small, 5 to 10 mm drupe that turns bright red when 

ripe. 


Figure 12: Sketch of Cyphostemma /Cissus species found on Marloth Park. 


Owners and visitors to Marloth Park are requested to report any observed specimens to 

myself 9 , Ronelle Kemp 10 or the National Botanical Institute in Pretoria. 

Another rare plant is the summer impala lily Adenium swazicum that resemble the common 

impala lily Adenium multiflorum in growth form. However, Adenium swazicum is restricted to 

black, Arcadic soils with a high clay contents, whereas Adenium multiflorum is usually 

associated with poor soils and a rocky substrate. The root of Adenium swazicum is adapted to 

the extreme swelling and shrinking properties of the soil, by a large succulent root that 

compensates for these environmental fluctuations. The leaves of Adenium swazicum are 

lanceolate and covered in fine dense hair. Adenium swazicum flowers in summer with a 

profusion of bright pink flowers. Adenium multiflorum, however, flowers in winter with a 

profusion of white flowers with a bright red corona. 

Distribution is apparently restricted to a small number of plots along Berghaan Street and 

Naboom Street, just off Seekoei Road. Notably, Adenium swazicum is found in high densities 

on plots 3246 to 3256. However, these plants are also found on neighbouring plots with 

Arcadic soils and a high seasonal moisture regime. It is recommended that some protective 

measures be implemented on Marloth Park to ensure species survival. Where development 

has been approved it is important that cognisance be taken on occurrence of this plant species, 

and where necessary that plants affected by the development be removed and relocated to a 

suitable environment before construction begins. 

The presence of red data species cannot be discounted due to the extent of the area, seasonal 

variation and phenology of plant species. It is recommended that an ecological impact study 

be conducted on each plot, before approval of any development, to assess the potential 

occurrence other red data plant species. 

9 Ben Orban. Ecological Associates, P O Box 11644, Hatfield, Pretoria 0028. Cell: +27 (083) 400 7031 

10 Honorary Ranger, Marloth Park. Cell: +27 (083) 647 7775 


NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEEDS 

An invasive plant species can be defined as any plant that propagates itself to such extend that 

the density that ensue is considered detrimental to biodiversity and the natural vegetation that 

occur in that region. Although all plant species has the inherent ability to increase their 

distribution under favourable conditions, most invasive plant species are alien to the country 

and their rapid spread can be attributed to the lack of species competition and the absence of 

natural control pathogens. Thus, any plant species that increases their density and distribution 

to such extend that it considered detrimental to the development objectives can be considered 

an invasive plant species. Many alien plant species in South Africa do not reveal the inherent 

ability to propagate itself to such extend that it is considered undesirable. 

These undesirable plant species, as specified in regulations pertaining to the Conservation of 

Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 and amended in the Government gazette Vol 429: No 

22166 of 30 March 2001, necessitated the classification of undesirable plant species 

according to three categories, based on the invasive properties and potential commercial 

benefit of retaining some of these plants in demarcated areas under controlled conditions. The 

following three categories pertain to declared weeds and alien invader plant species: 

Category 1 

These plants may not occur on any land or inland water surface other than in a biological 

control reserve. Except for the purpose of establishing a biological reserve, one may not plant, 

maintain, multiply or propagate such plants, import or sell or acquire propagating material of 

such plants except with the written exception of the executive officer. 

Category 2 

These are plants with a commercial application and may only be grown in demarcated areas 

or biological reserves. 

Category 3 

The regulations regarding these plants are the same as for Category 1, except that plants 

already in existence at the time of these regulations are exempt, unless they occur within 30 

metres of a 1:50 year flood line of river or stream. 

The affects of invasive plants 

Alien invasive plants have the competitive advantage over indigenous plant species and often 

out-compete indigenous species for natural resources, thus reducing the species diversity. 


This also leads to a reduction in habitat for associated invertebrate and vertebrate fauna, fungi, 

bryophytes and other lower plants. Palatable indigenous plant species are often replaced by 

unpalatable alien invasive species. This not only has implications for the ecosystem, but also 

for the lands agricultural potential. 

Strategies for the control of noxious and invasive plant species 

The general approach to any infestation is to delineate a block or land-unit, with the intention 

of dealing with sparse infestations first. However, due to the fragmented distribution of 

species and densities in a variety of different habitats, a more ecological approach is 

advocated. 

The primary goal of the ecological approach is to conserve and sustain complete ecosystems, 

delineated using topographical or cadastral features and vegetation boundaries or ecotones. 

Most infestations by environmental weeds cannot be treated in one year due to physical and 

financial constraints. It is therefore, important that priority areas be identified. Areas falling 

outside these priority areas are usually not ecologically or economically important enough to 

warrant the effort. This is the case with highly disturbed areas such as along fences and 

roadsides, which will always be prone to weed invasions. It is thus considered more effective 

to concentrate conservation efforts and expenses on viable ecosystems, while living with 

environmental weeds in non-priority areas. 

UNDESIRABLE PLANT MANAGEMENT 

Management practices can be used to kill or suppress environmental weeds. Mechanical, 

chemical, biological and cultural control constitutes the four basic methods by which 

populations of noxious and invasive plants are managed. 

Often a more integrated control approach is advocated, where pest populations are managed 

using all suitable techniques to reduce the populations and maintain them at acceptable levels. 

To achieve effective control of environmental weeds, three distinct phases need to be 

implemented, i.e. initial, follow-up and maintenance phases. Initial control aims at removing 

the original infestation, and is usually implemented in one year. Follow-up is usually 

implemented annually from the second year, as copious numbers of seedlings will emerge in 

the treated areas due to the residual weed-seed banks. This follow-up phase must be continued 

until population numbers decline to a level where they can be controlled with minimum input 

and effort. The maintenance phase is reached when areas require low annual or biannual 

commitment to prevent re-infestation. Control programmes should strive to reach 

maintenance control and not total eradication, which is considered unrealistic. 


Management plans need to be reviewed and updated annually as it is often impractical to treat 

all undesirable plant species or infested areas in the same year, and also because it is 

impossible to accurately predict weed successional responses. Planning errors must be 

expected, and if the management plans are not updated annually, it must be expected that 

these errors will be compounded over time and seriously affect control reliability. It is 

considered prudent that a weed control programme not be implemented unless a commitment 

of time, labour and finances is allocated to follow-up control operations. 

Control measures 

A number of infestations of exotic plants occur on Marloth Park, some of which were planted 

purposely in the past and others, which have spread naturally into the area. Some of these 

infestations need to receive immediate attention in order to prevent further encroachment of 

the natural vegetation. However, it must be emphasized that success will not be achieved 

without co-operation of the property owners, where education and understanding of the 

implications is considered crucial. It is recommended that control measures be implemented 

to improve the vegetation cover and where possible implement drastic reclamation measures 

to replace the herbaceous layer. 

It is recommended that invasive plant control measures be implemented in co-operation with 

the Working-for-Water programme. The follow-up phase can then be implemented and 

sustained by the owners. The following noxious and invasive plant species found on Marloth 

Park are considered undesirable, have reached encroaching densities, or must be eradicated by 

law: 

Agave sisalana 

This plant classified as an invasive weed species (Category 2) and must be eradicated. The 

sisal is recognized by the basal rosette arrangement of succulent sword-shaped leaves with a 

sharp terminal spine (Appendix 4). These leaves can exceed 2 m in length. Propagation is 

achieved by suckers from the base and by small plants that replace the flowers. The size and 

number of these sisal plants are currently limited to gardens in Marloth Park. 

It is recommended that the sisal plants are cut down and the roots dug out and disposed off at 

a garden refuse facility. Follow-up treatment can be required to ensure that remaining root 

fragments do not propagate. Alternatively, the central rosette can be removed and chemically 

treated by injecting the crown with MSMA ® , a registered photosynthesis inhibitor. The plant 

can then be mechanically removed and disposed of after it has died. 


Cereus jamacaru 

The queen of the night is a thick, spiny succulent with prominent ribs (Appendix 4) that can 

reach a height in excess of 7 m. A large number of individuals were identified distributed 

throughout Marloth Park. As this is a declared noxious weed (Category 1) it must be 

eradicated. It is recommended that these plants be chemically treated by injection with 

MSMA ® and only removed after it has died. Follow-up inspections are required and can be 

implemented annually. It is recommended that these plant rests be burned, as any green 

vegetative parts can propagate vegetative again. 

Harrisia martinii 

The moon cactus is a much branched, spiny succulent with bright red fruits and snowy white 

flowers (Appendix 4). The distribution is currently limited to two properties, where they have 

apparently been planted without knowing the implications to the ecosystem on Marloth Park. 

Due to a prolific seed production and the ease of seed distribution by birds and other animals, 

this plant species is a classified Category 1 invader species and must be eradicated. Any 

eradication programme, however, that is not conducted in co-operation with the property 

owners is doomed to fail, as re-infestation will occur. Bio-control methods are currently being 

investigated, but success can be achieved by mechanical removal or chemically treated by 

injection with MSMA ® . The dead plants can then be removed and burned, as any green 

vegetative parts will propagate vegetative again. 

Lantana camara 

Lantana is an attractive ornamental shrub with colourful, compact flower heads (Appendix 4). 

Due to the invasive properties of this exotic plant, it is now a declared noxious weed 

(category 1) and must be eradicated. This shrub is found in dense clusters in isolated patches 

in Marloth Park. It is recommended that an intensive eradication project that include a follow- 

up and maintenance control programme, be initiated as soon as possible. These plants can be 

mechanically uprooted and placed upside down to die. Dead plant material will be removed 

during the implemented burning regime for Marloth Park. 

Opuntia ficus-indica 

The prickly pear (Appendix 4) is widely distributed throughout Marloth Park with plants 

found, virtually, on ever property. Due to its ability to distribute seed and propagate readily, 

this Category 1 invader species must be eradicated. It is recommended that these plants be 

chemically treated by injection with MSMA ® , removed and burned after it has died, as any 

green vegetative parts will propagate vegetative again. 


Ricinus communis, Solanum sisymbriifolium and Xanthium strumarium 

The castor bean Ricinus communis (Category 2) can be recognized by its large shiny palmate 

(hand-shaped) leafs. The wild tomato Solanum sisymbriifolium is also a noxious weed 

(Category 1), but recognized by it prickly appearance. The large cocklebur Xanthium 

strumarium is characterized by it profusion of spiky seedpods, and due to its invasive 

properties classified as an undesirable weed (Category 1). These species can be found 

distributed throughout Marloth Park, but nowhere in large densities. It is, however, 

recommended that all these species be mechanically removed when encountered. The castor 

bean and the wild tomato are relatively low priority species, but wild tomato and large 

cocklebur should be considered high priority species that must be controlled. 

Alien species 

There are a myriad of other alien species found on Marloth Park, many of these considered 

naturalized weeds or acceptable garden plants. Undesirable weeds such as Amaranthus sp., 

Bidens pilosa and Tagetes minuta are all considered low priority plant species found 

throughout Marloth Park. These plant species are usually associated with disturbed areas such 

as roadsides. Control of these plants can effectively be obtained by a natural burning regime, 

as the application of herbicide, although effective, is not considered economically viable. 

BUSH ENCROACHMENT 

Bush encroachment is commonly defined as an increasing woody plant density. With the 

woody plant component increasing the grass sward diminishes, as the woody seedlings out 

compete the herbaceous layer for water supplies. This causes a decrease in an areas´ grazing 

capacity. Effects of overgrazing become more and more severe. 

With an increase of the level of tree thinning more and more grasses colonize bare ground. 

With less competition from woody plants for ground water after tree thinning, grasses stand a 

better chance to establish. To promote grass production in the areas of arid mixed bushveld no 

more than 1500 to 1700 trees per hectare are recommended This recommendation represents 

an approach between positive and negative interaction of trees and herbaceous layer as well as 

the aridity of the area as it influences the available soil moisture. The desired vegetation 

structure is an open savanna, which consists mainly of large trees, interspersed with relatively 

few small trees. 


Bush control 

Causes for bush encroachment are manifold. One cause is the misuse of fire. Drought and 

human disturbance together with the absence of game migration and the absence of tree 

damage by animals, such as elephant, are more likely to cause bush encroachment. The most 

important reason for bush encroached areas in southern Africa, is the imbalance in stocking of 

the different feeding groups. High stocking rates of grazers, and low stocking rates of 

browsers, results in over-utilisation of the grass sward. 

With high stocking rates of browsers, young woody plant seedlings cannot develop into 

mature shrubs and trees, due to severe over-utilisation. Too low stocking rates of browsers 

will result in an abundance of trees and shrubs that will eventually reach densities that 

suppress the maintenance and/or development of the grass stratum. Passive management 

alone, such as the introduction of large browsers like elephant Loxodonta africana and black 

rhinoceros Diceros bicornis can be considered, but does not seem sufficient in correcting 

these imbalances. Furthermore, the introduction of these animals is limited to larger 

conservations areas only. Correcting these historic imbalances, usually attributed to cattle 

ranching, cannot effectively be corrected by adjusting the stocking rates, and active 

management will be required. Manipulation of the browser population is considered a tool for 

long-term bush control. 

Fire as a means of active bush control is of questionable use. Furthermore, the use of fire is 

not advised in sweet veld areas, and other measures need to be taken. Mechanical methods 

such as clearing bush with chains or bulldozers are effective but cost inhibitive. Even more of 

a disadvantage with this method of bush clearing is the soil compaction and disturbance of the 

grass layer. Where the grass layer is already decimated, this method is not recommended. 

Another mechanical method is ring-barking or girdling. This method causes death of trees 

within 1 to 3 years through removal of the bark around the trunk. Chemical treatment of the 

exposed trunk area enhances the process and inhibits coppicing. This method is not feasible 

for multi-stemmed tree species. 

Alternatively, the manual slashing, felling and chopping down of trees is the only mechanical 

means of removing encroaching woody plants. Serviceable tools are an axe, a hand-held or 

tractor driven chainsaw, a circular saw or a brush cutter. With a tractor driven circular chain 

saw up to 2.4 ha can be cleared in one day. Mechanical bush clearing is best combined with 

chemical treatment, in this case stump treatment with an herbicide. Stem notching and 

application of an herbicide is not feasible with multi-stemmed trees. 


Although soil treatment with chemicals works best in sandy soils, this method is also not 

recommended for areas with relatively high clay content. Soil treatment is dependent on 

rainfall for leaching the product, and plants might take up to 3 years to die. An alternative to 

felling and stump treatment is the foliar application of herbicides. However, this method is not 

considered selective and can transfer to non-target tree species. Aerial application of 

herbicides is very costly and not selective, and should only be considered on extreme 

monoculture stands of undesirable plants. Poisoning of browsers with herbicides is unlikely to 

occur. Unlike the mechanical eradication and stump-treatment though, the foliar application 

of chemicals is restricted to the time where the plant leaves are fully developed. 

Mechanical eradication of individual trees in combination with chemical stump-treatment is 

advised for quick and long-lasting effects of bush encroachment problems. Although this 

procedure is time consuming it has several advantages. Trees, which are cut back and treated, 

are killed relatively quickly. Selective treatment ensures control over the extent of the 

thinning and little chance of damaging other trees considered valuable for forage supply. 

Furthermore, harvested material can be used as charcoal or to brush-pack bare areas in veld 

reclamation measures. 

The most common plant applied herbicides are Picloram and Triclopyr. Picloram is available 

under the product names Tordon ® , Grazon ® and Access ® . Triclopyr is available in different 

concentrations as Garlon ® . Picloram or Triclopyr are mixed with diesel oil or old oil at a 1 

percent concentration. For safety reasons a dye should be added to facilitate administration of 

the product and limit replication. Alternatively, a water-soluble form of Picloram (Access ® ) is 

available. If applied to the stump a concentration of 2 percent Access ® and 2 percent Actipron 

Super ® as wetting agent is used. Leaf application as a spray affords a concentration of 0.35 

percent Access ® and 0.5 percent Actipron ® . 

When clearing bush it is strongly advised not to remove all woody plants. The reason is that, 

although an increase in the grass development is observed in the short-term, in the long-term 

the quality and quantity of the grass sward will diminish due to eventual nutrient loss after the 

interruption of the nutrient cycle. By selectively clearing undesirable tree species, sufficient 

woody plants will remain in the cleared area. 

Recalculation of browsing capacities becomes necessary after bush clearing, especially if 

preferred browsed tree species are reduced. 



The presence of sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea is the only species currently exhibiting 

encroaching properties on Marloth Park, and although not classified as an alien plant species, 

it is invasive and recommended that the number of individuals be reduced in an attempt to 

decrease the localized densities. Although the distribution of Dichrostachys cinerea is not 

limited to the Dichrostachys cinerea - Tragus berteronianus Low bushland plant community, 

the visual dominance in density is notable and in most areas exceed 1125 individuals per 

hectare, creating reason for concern. Furthermore, the liase fair approach to this problem has 

resulted in these trees becoming of age, thus exceeding the maximum browse high of 2.0 m, 

with effect that these trees have little to no browsing value. The high density also inhibits 

recovery of the herbaceous layer, thus retaining the historically poor species composition and 

ground cover. 

It is recommended that a combination of mechanical and chemical treatment of the 

Dichrostachys cinerea be initiated, as best visual results are obtained using these methods. 

Minimum disturbance of other vegetation occurs and branches that are being removed can be 

used in reclamation of denuded and degraded areas. The use of a hand axe or petrol driven 

chainsaw is recommended. All trees rooted within a circumference of 5 m of each other, 

irrespective of age or size, can be removed. The selected trees are cut at 100 to 150 mm above 

the soil surface; where after the remaining cut stump is treated with a chemical, 

photosynthesis inhibiter such as Tordon Super ® (picloram/triclopyr). The remaining trees will 

be in excess of 3 m in height, creating the most suitable sub-habitat for plant species 

exhibiting a preference for shade. Many nutritional grass species are usually encountered in 

this sub-habitat. 

To achieve effective control of the Dichrostachys cinerea infestations, initial, follow-up and 

maintenance treatments must be implemented. Initial control aims at removing the original 

infestation, and must be implemented in one season. With selection of an area, time and 

labour constraints must be considered. Follow-up is usually implemented annually from the 

second year, as copious numbers of seedlings will emerge in the treated areas due to the 

residual seed banks. This follow-up phase must be continued until population numbers 

decline to a level where they can be controlled with minimum input and effort. The 

maintenance phase is reached when areas require low annual or biannual commitment to 

prevent re-infestation. Control programmes should strive to reach maintenance control and 

not total eradication, which is considered unrealistic. 


Planning errors must be expected, and if the eradication programme is not updated annually, it 

must be expected that these errors will be compounded over time and seriously affect control 

reliability. It is considered prudent that an invasive control programme not be implemented 

unless a commitment of time, labour and finances is allocated to follow-up control operations. 

VELD RECLAMATION 

Veld deterioration does not only show itself in the increase of the woody plant fraction as in 

bush encroachment, but can also contribute to absence of the herbaceous plant cover. Bare 

patches on a ranch result in soil loss and erosion through wind and rain. With the loss of the 

topsoil, the production potential of the veld and therefore, the grazing and browsing capacity, 

is reduced. The result is a lower animal production. 

Overgrazing and low, inconsistent rainfall are the most dominant factors causing the 

degradation of the rangeland in southern Africa. Three main concepts are suitable for use in 

reclaiming bare patches: 

• Mechanical treatment of the soil 

• Reseeding of a grass seed mixture 

• Brush packing 

All three methods are applicable on their own, but best results are obtained if all three 

methods are combined. 

The soil is treated, to better absorb and retain moisture. Breaking up the soil surface facilitates 

germination and establishment of grass seeds. The soil is either ripped along furrows along 

contours every 3 to 5 m to a depth of at least 400 mm or depressions are formed of 1 m in 

length, 0.5 m in depth and 0.3 m in width with implements such as a Dyker plough. Furrows 

encourage water infiltration and the establishment of grass species, whereas depressions in the 

soil encourage accumulation of rainwater, organic material and grass seeds. Reseeding and 

the creation of seed banks accelerate the natural processes of succession. Fencing off small 

areas in the headwaters of drainage depressions creates seed banks. The seed bank is a source 

for downstream seed dispersal. 

Before sowing, the seedbed has to be prepared to ensure optimal conditions for germination, 

survival and growth of grass seedlings. Soil moisture is heightened before seeding by treating 

the soil mechanically, breaking up the soil surface. 


However, the top centimetres of the topsoil should be dry when new seed is sown. Seed is 

distributed to the soil in two ways. With broadcast application the seed is spread by hand or 

with a specific implement over the total soil surface. With row application the seeds are sown 

in strips. They are sown either by hand or with implements such as the ripper. The seed type 

should be adapted to the specific soil type, should be palatable and should have a relatively 

high production potential. Palatable climax grass species occurring naturally in the area are 

preferred, as these are adapted to the prevailing conditions. Including pioneer grass species 

such as Aristida congesta and Chloris virgata are important, because they establish first and 

prepare the habitat for the climax grasses. Incorporating grass species of low palatability 

ensures that no overgrazing takes place in the reclaimed area. The correct seed mixture will 

save time and money. The mixture should contain annual and perennial grass species. Seeds 

of species such as three-awn Aristida congesta, blue buffalo grass Cenchrus ciliaris, feathered 

chloris Chloris virgata, finger grass Digitaria eriantha, weeping love grass Eragrostis 

curvula, Lehmann’s love grass Eragrostis lehmanniana, Guinea grass Panicum maximum, 

couch grass Cynodon dactylon and sand quick Schmidtia pappophoroides are possible 

ingredients of a good seed mixture. Aristida congesta, Cenchrus ciliaris and Eragrostis 

lehmanniana and Schmidtia pappophoroides are suitable for sandy soils in low rainfall areas. 

Digitaria eriantha, Panicum maximum and large-seed bristle grass Setaria incrassate prefer 

soils with relatively high clay and moisture contents. Chloris virgata grows in any type of 

soil. Application of 6 to 8 kg seed mixture per hectare was proven to be an efficient dosage. 

To protect the newly sown seeds, the topsoil of the seedbed must be compacted by rolling or 

trampling on the soil. Furthermore, seeds and new seedlings need protection against 

utilisation by insects and herbivores, trampling and excessive heat. Fencing off the area offers 

protection to a certain degree but is not feasible for Marloth Park. Covering the newly 

reseeded soil with straw or branches (brush packing), preferably thorny branches, is a possible 

means of defence. Covering the soil with sheaves of straw also serves to retain moisture. 

Brush packing does not only serve to cover the respective area but also to trap seed and silt, to 

prevent runoff and to create a suitable microclimate for seed germination. When covering the 

respective area with branches, leaves and fine twigs of branches should be placed diagonal to 

the direction of the flow of the water in order to catch the topsoil and to prevent seed from 

being washed away. 

The standard height recommended for brush packing is 0.5 m. Flat areas with relatively small 

bare patches should be covered on the whole surface area. On steep inclines branches should 

be packed every 17 m at the top of the incline and every 37 m further downhill, to reduce 

water velocity. Spacing is adapted to the availability of woody material. Branch belts should 

be at least 0.3 m wide and span the length of the bare patch. 


To further reduce grazing pressure and prevent trampling and utilisation of new seedlings, 

animals should be drawn away from the area to be reclaimed. For this reason water points 

should be closed and no feed or licks supplied in the vicinity. 


Ecosystems disturbed by clearing operations will be susceptible to re-invasion, usually due to 

the residual weed-seed bank that remains viable for a number of years. Therefore, where time, 

money and effort are spent on environmental weed control, commitment to rehabilitating and 

managing these areas correctly is essential. Rehabilitation procedures consist of restoration, 

reclamation and rehabilitation. Restoration implies returning the site back to its original state. 

However, this is considered almost impossible to attain in dynamic ecosystems. Reclamation 

implies that the sites are modified so that the habitat is again suitable to the organisms 

originally present or to other that approximate the original inhabitants. 

Rehabilitation implies that the site is made useful again by creating productive plant cover, 

and stopping further degradation. Rehabilitation is thus considered a more flexible concept 

than restoration or reclamation, which abides to rigid criteria. Rehabilitation is best 

implemented soon after initial control operations have been implemented. Areas in dire need 

of rehabilitation measures are the old cultivated lands, now encroached by sickle bush 

Dichrostachys cinerea. It is recommended that rehabilitation measures be implemented in 

conjunction with bush control applications. All branches from cut Dichrostachys cinerea can 

be used in brush packing those areas. However, not all degraded areas are encroached by 

invader tree species such as Dichrostachys cinerea, and active rehabilitation measures must 

be implemented if recovery of the herbaceous layer is to be achieved. 

All invaded areas with compacted soils and a poor grass composition should be dished using a 

Dyker plough and reseeded before brush packing. Alternatively dishing can be achieved 

manually using a spade, by creating a latticework of hollows or depressions spaced 1 to 2 m 

apart. Each depression must be able to retain approximately 1 litre of water. After reseeding 

the area can then be brush packed to a height of at least 0.5 m. This will in effect keep most 

animals out and allow for recovery of the veld. Natural decomposition of these branches will 

be achieved over a period of 3 years; whereafter, the veld should have recovered sufficiently 

to withstand renewed grazing pressure. 


The following seed mixture is recommended 11 : 

• Guinea grass Panicum maximum 

• Blue buffalo grass Cenchrus ciliaris 

• Finger grass Digitaria eriantha 

• Weeping love grass Eragrostis curvula 

• Lehmann’s love grass Eragrostis lehmanniana 

• Large-seed bristle grass Setaria incrassata 

Additional veld recovery can be achieved by supplementing the animals using a grass seed 

enriched lick. Grass seeds ingested while utilising the lick is passed through the digestive tract 

and deposited in the veld where germination can take place. Although the immediate effect is 

not noticeable, the long-term benefits in increased forage production can be an advantageous 

to Marloth Park. Another method of rehabilitation and habitat improvement is where a seed 

mixture is imbedded in a cow dung patty, approximately 10cm x 10 cm x 3 cm in size, and 

then distributed throughout the veld. These patties can be made and sold to property owners, 

who wish to participate in managing Marloth Park, to recover the cost. 

FIRE REGIME 

Before the advent of white man, game consisting of both grazers and browsers occupied vast 

areas of Africa. Game animals tended to graze veld areas fairly short and then moved on. 

Natural resting was thus implemented at different seasons and this allowed for vigorous grass 

growth. Grass reserves built up towards the end of the growing seasons and this allowed for 

lightning induced fires every few years. The grass reserves were adequate to create hot fires, 

which damaged woody seedlings, thus increasing grass competition. Fires were therefore, 

responsible for keeping the veld from being dominated by trees. The fire climax grasslands 

(sour grassveld) and savanna areas of the world owe their existence to fire, which has for long 

been part of their development. Fire is therefore, to be accepted as an inherent requirement of 

vegetation in maintaining an ecological balance. If fire is as a factor is to be removed form 

the system it can be expected that some changes in vegetation will occur. The 

implementation of a natural fire regime would therefore be ideal. Human interference has, 

however, made this almost impossible to obtain. On most ranches and conservation areas 

constant grazing pressure, despite rotational resting practices, and lightning induced fires play 

a significant role in regulating successional development of the vegetation. 

11 Agricol (Pty) Ltd. P O Box 300, Brackenfell, 7560. Tel: (021) 981 1126 


Lightning induced fires can also cause a substantial loss of grazing land if adequate firebreaks 

are not in place. However, the simulation of a natural fire regime should be attempted to 

compensate for the absence of natural fires. 

The following are the objectives for using fire in veld management: 

Removal of old, unpalatable and unacceptable growth from the previous season, which 

can smother new growth. 

To destroy parasites such as ticks. 

Control of undesirable woody or herbaceous invaders that reduce the production of the 

grass layer. 

Areas can be burnt to induce rotational grazing. 

Firebreaks can be made to protect the veld. 

Another reason quoted for burning veld is to stimulate an out-of-season “green-pick”. This is 

often done during the summer, late autumn or late winter to provide green forage for grazing 

animals. Burning at these times is harmful because it: 

Reduces the vigour of the grass sward 

Reduces the canopy and basal cover of the grass sward 

Increases the run-off rainwater 

Results in increased soil erosion 

Adequate removal of top-growth by grazing alone is difficult in sourveld areas, although it 

may be achieved in intensive grazing systems. In sourveld areas, unpalatable low quality 

material accumulates on the less acceptable plants in particular, and burning must be resorted 

to remove this material if the plants are not to become moribund and die. Veld will deteriorate 

if it remains unutilised for any length of time. Therefore, where grass growth is rapid, and 

where there is no alternative method of utilizing the top growth (such as by grazing or 

mowing), frequent burning is advisable. 

Although fire can be used to control ticks, this is considered ineffective and generally not 

recommended. Fire is considered as a natural phenomenon in regulating bush encroachment 

and maintaining grasslands. The effectiveness of fire for the control of bush encroachment is, 

however, doubtful. Fire is generally more effective in controlling bush encroachment in the 

initial growth stages, but become less effective as the trees grow above the grass layer. 


When using fire for the control of bush encroachment, it is recommended that it be used in 

combination with high browsing pressures. Pure browsers such as kudu do not compete with 

grazers and can thus be used to increase the browsing intensity. 

The fire regime to be used in controlled burning refers to the type and intensity of fire, and the 

season and frequency of burning. These factors are discussed separately below. 

TYPE OF FIRE 

Three types of fires are distinguished on the basis of the layers in which they: 

A ground fire is a fire that burns below the surface of the ground in deep layers of organic 

material and plant debris. 

A surface fire is a fire that burns in the herbaceous surface vegetation. 

A crown fire is a fire that burns in the canopies of trees and shrubs. 

Further subdivision can be made into fires burning with and against the wind – head or back- 

fires. Crown fires occur only as head fires, but surface fires can be either head or back fires. 

Head fires should be used in controlled burning because they cause least damage to the grass 

sward but maximum damage to woody vegetation. 

FIRE INTENSITY 

Fire intensity is a term that refers to the rate at which energy is released per unit length of fire 

front and is expressed in kilojoules per second per metre (kJ.s -1 .m -1 ). The intensity of a fire is 

influenced by the fuel load, fuel moisture, air humidity, air temperature and wind speed. 

A fire will not spread readily when the grass fuel load is less than 2000 kg/ha. Burning of a 

veld can therefore only be considered if the grass fuel load is higher than 2000 kg/ha. 

The type of fire that is required to remove moribund or unacceptable material is a cool or low 

intensity head fire of smaller than 1000 kJ.s -1 .m -1 . This type of fire can be achieved when the 

air temperature is below 20 ºC, the relative humidity above 50 percent and the soil moist. 

These conditions prevail most often before 11h00 in the morning and after 15h30 in the 

afternoon. When burning to control undesirable plants a high intensity fire of larger than 2000 

kJ.s -1 .m -1 is necessary. Such a fire can be achieved by burning when the grass fuel load is 

more than 4000 kg/ha, the air temperature between 25 ºC and 30 ºC, and the relative humidity 

smaller than 30 percent. A fire such as this will cause a significant top-kill of stems and 

branches of bush species up to a 3 m height. 


TIME OF BURNING 

Least damage is caused to the grass sward if it is burned when the grass is dormant. The time 

of veld burning should be decided on, in such a way that the veld is able to reform a leaf 

cover as quickly as possible. Veld that is burnt before the first spring rains, remains bare and 

is therefore, more susceptible to soil erosion by both wind and water. Veld burning should be 

implemented during the 6 week period preceding the expected commencement of the growing 

season (September), provided that the grass do not begin to grow due to sufficient soil 

moisture, and for a period of 2 weeks after the start of the growth season. If the veld has not 

been burnt before the first spring rains, due to signs of growth, it should be done within 24 

hours after the first spring rains of 15 mm or more. 

FREQUENCY OF BURNING 

The frequency of burning will depend on the rate of accumulation of grass litter. Fuel loads 

should not exceed 4000 kg/ha, as this will create a danger of uncontrolled fires. Sourveld 

areas can generally be burned every 2 to 4 years. The frequency of burning to control 

undesirable plants in the veld depends on the plant species under consideration. Some species 

require only a single hot burn, whereas others require numerous fires for their control. 

MANAGEMENT OF VELD AFTER FIRE 

Sourveld should not be grazed after a fire until the grass sward has re-grown to a height of at 

least 150 mm. 

FIREBREAKS 

The lack of effective firebreaks is one of the most important reasons for fires getting out of 

control. Burning should never be attempted without adequate firebreaks. A change in wind 

direction can be disastrous and the application of a back fire to contain a run-away fire almost 

impossible to attain. There are basically two types of firebreaks, namely: clean cultivated 

firebreaks and burnt firebreaks. Clean cultivated firebreaks are the most effective and 

comprise the removal of all ground vegetation. This can be accomplished either manually or 

mechanically. Burnt firebreaks are where a strip of vegetation is burnt around the larger area 

intended to be burnt. The most common method is to burn a strip of grass with the aid of fire- 

fighting equipment. A safer method is to cut two strips with a mower early in the winter. 

This leaves an uncut strip in the centre, which is then burnt as soon as the grass is dry enough. 

This method is, however, limited to areas with gentle topography. A similar method is to 

spray two strips of grassveld with a foliar herbicide during autumn and to burn the strips when 

the grass becomes dry. The unsprayed portion between the sprayed strips is then burned 

during winter when the grass is dry and dormant. 


The firebreak need be wide enough to contain the flames during the application of the back 

fire. When the head fire is applied, its flames are blown away from the firebreak into the 

areas to be burned. It is proposed that a firebreak of 4 to 8 m wide be maintain around the 

property boundary. The existing road infrastructure can be used as efficient firebreaks and 

should be sufficient in stopping a fire. No additional firebreaks are required. 

BURNING PROCEDURE 

The National Act on veld and forest fires (Act no 101 of 1998) has in mind that government 

bodies, property owners, institutions and association be collectively held responsible for the 

prevention and management of fires. It is thus, in the interest of individual property owners 

that they or a representative be actively involved with a local fire prevention association. It is 

recommended that the local fire prevention unit be informed before implementing a burn and 

their co-operation obtained in controlling the fire. 

The following rules should be kept in mind to prevent a fire from getting out of control: 

Make and maintain effective firebreaks on the borders of the area. 

Inform residents and neighbours before burning a boundary firebreak. It is preferable to 

plan and burn boundary firebreaks in co-operation with neighbours. The neighbours’ 

presence must be insisted upon when burning on the boundary. 

Wait for suitable weather. On a windy day fires can easily get out of control. 

Burn the firebreaks before the grass becomes so dry that it becomes a fire hazard. 

Never light a fire where it cannot be controlled. 

Do everything possible to prevent a fire from spreading. 

Never leave a fire unattended before it is fully extinguished. 

Any burning operation should start along a firebreak as a back burn. The back burn should be 

allowed to burn for a sufficient distance to ensure the safety of the area downwind of the fire. 

Once this have been done, a fire line is set along the upwind margin of the paddock, so that 

the greater proportion of the area is burned out by a head fire. A dip torch is a useful tool for 

setting such fire lines. 


A mosaic pattern of veld burning is often applied on farms to maintain a sound species and 

habitat diversity in the vegetation. The main reason for burning on any property is for the 

removal of unacceptable material. The type of fire, which is therefore required, is a low 

intensity fire. 


A low intensity fire will be achieved by burning when the following environmental conditions 

are present in the area to burn: the air temperature should be below 20 ºC, the relative 

humidity above 50 percent and the soil moist. This means that burning must preferably take 

place during the morning before 11h00. The fuel load must also be at least 2000 kg/ha for the 

fire to be carried. Fuel loads for each management unit must be determined annually before 

implementing a burn. All plant communities, with exception of the Dichrostachys cinerea – 

Tragus berteronianus Low bushland has sufficient biomass to sustain a burn. However, 

burning in Marloth Park is not recommended due to the high risk of property damage. 

As fire is only recommended to reduce biomass and remove moribund plant material, it is 

recommended that an alternative method be applied to simulate the same action. Although the 

Leitner box method can be used, this method is labour intensive. The box consists of a 

rectangular structure that can be manually moved from section to section, after burning the 

vegetation inside the box. The best alternative is to slash the vegetation manually. It is 

recommended that herbaceous biomass production be measured annually and priority areas 

identified that require a slashing programme. Property owners must be convinced of the 

necessity of removing the excess material, not only for the health of the vegetation but to 

reduce the risk of natural or accidental fires that can damage or destroy their residence. As 

property owners generally do not have the equipment, labour or time to implement such a 

programme, it is recommended that an independent consultant be contracted to achieve the 

desired results. 

Although burning of Marloth Park during the 2006 season will not be required, it is 

recommended that a proactive system be implemented that will be able to deal with excessive 

biomass production. Based on the high rainfall experienced in the 2005/2006 seasons it can be 

expected that the effects on the vegetation will be most noticeable in the next 2 years, pending 

seasonal follow-up. 

SOIL EROSION 

Degraded ranch land is highly susceptible to soil erosion because of their low basal grass 

cover and their slow recovery rate in terms of grass cover. Especially those wildlife areas that 

start as a trampled livestock ranch face problems of soil erosion. Soil erosion leads to the loss 

of fertile soil, depositing of unproductive soil on fertile land, desiccation of soil in the vicinity 

of gullies due to excessive drainage and the undermining of infrastructure facilities and roads. 

Furthermore, erosion ditches disturb the pristine appearance of the landscape, reducing the 

areas tourism potential. Soil erosion is a natural process and cannot be prevented. 


However, reasonable management can limit soil erosion to an acceptable level, where 

utilisation of the resources is not influenced negatively. This acceptable level is usually 

determined as the level, where no perceptible loss of soil is observed. 

The main causes of soil erosion are wind and water. Where the herbaceous cover of the soil is 

thin, the top layer of the soil is compacted by raindrops. Therefore, water infiltration 

decreases and water run-off increases, resulting in the displacement of the topsoil. In South 

Africa water erosion is significant in areas receiving more than 100 mm of rain per year, 

whereas wind erosion is restricted to areas receiving less than 400 mm of rain per year. Vertic 

soils are more prone to erosion than sandy soils. 

Prevention of soil erosion starts with the prevention of the deterioration of the veld and the 

development of bare patches. Prevention of the formation of new erosion ditches and the 

expansion of existing dongas is of importance. This management aim is reached by reducing 

water run-off in catchments areas by establishing a good grass layer and diverting the run-off 

water from the erosion ditch. Ditches that have only begun to form should be stabilised first, 

before extensive dongas are reclaimed. Complete repair of short ditches is preferable to only 

partial repair of extensive dongas. Existing erosion ditches need to be prevented from 

becoming deeper, wider and longer. Erosion of the donga floor is controlled by the 

construction of walls made of stone, concrete, wire baskets filled with stones (gabions) or a 

combination of these materials. These walls are anchored deep in the floor and the sides of the 

donga. Large stones are placed at the bottom and along the gully wall. Then smaller stones are 

stacked on top to build the wall. The upstream side of the wall is constructed with a slope, 

while the downstream side is vertical. Water cannot flow underneath or around these 

structures. Silt accumulates on the upstream side and vegetation establishes itself on the 

structures as well as the donga floor, where moisture is retained. To accelerate to process of 

rehabilitation, creeping grass species such as couch grass Cynodon dactylon can be planted on 

the slope of the artificial walls. The initial wall need not be high. As silt builds up, the wall 

can be raised. However, the minimum height of a wall should be constructed in such a way 

that water flowing over the dam does not exceed 0.6 m. Building walls at the head of a donga 

or ditch prevents them from growing longer and wider. The wall needs to be constructed in 

such a way, that water cannot flow into the ditch from the side and cause the walls to cave in. 

Therefore, walls need to be higher than the ditch itself and additional low walls, parallel to the 

edge of the ditch need to be constructed. The water is then directed into the gully by 

predetermined channels. 



Marloth Park is dominated by sandy soils that are not very susceptible to erosion due to good 

water infiltration and percolation properties. The slightly undulating terrain form, furthermore 

limits water velocity and extreme soil loss. However, soils on degraded areas such as on the 

old cultivated areas or Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus Low bushland plant 

community, is more prone to erosion and topsoil loss due to poor herbaceous basal cover. 

This poor cover can be attributed to increased competition from the tree layer, dominated by 

sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea, constant grazing pressure and high stocking rates of 

impala Aepyceros melampus melampus. The soil surface in such patches also tends to 

compact and develop a hard crust that sheds water. Temperatures exceeding 52° C at a depth 

of 50 mm has been recorded on these barren areas, exacerbating the degradation. 

Regeneration of such areas is slow and failures are common, due to low and unreliable 

rainfall. Rehabilitation programmes on degraded veld is usually aimed at improving the 

microclimate and re-establishing a good basal cover. Methods used to break the crust on 

compacted areas can vary from shallow working with a toothed harrow, to deep working with 

a tined implement. In arid regions, success has been achieved using a dyker plough to form a 

series of pits scattered across the surface. These pits accumulate and hold water, providing a 

suitable seedbed for plants. Best results have been achieved where seed has been sown into 

the pits. 

It is recommended that sheet erosion, such as experienced in the Dichrostachys cinerea – 

Tragus berteronianus Low bushland plant community be remedied using a number of 

integrated treatments to ensure success. The first would be to reduce the tree density, the 

second to scarify the soil surface, third to reseed the area and fourth to brush-pack the surface. 

Tree densities can be reduced by manual and chemical treatment, as described in the section 

on bush encroachment. Scarification and reseeding can be achieved as described in the section 

on rehabilitation. Once these objectives had been met, the area can be brush-packed to a 

thickness of 0.5 m using the sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea branches that had been cut 

down. Implementing these actions will improve water infiltration, reduce erosion, create 

suitable microhabitat for the germination of grass seeds and keep animals out until the area 

has recovered sufficiently to again sustain utilisation. 


GENERAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MARLOTH PARK 

INTRODUCTION 

Management of any wildlife are also includes the non-living entities such as water points, 

fences, roads and infrastructure such as buildings. The correct number and placement of 

waterholes is important to control animal movement and to avoid over-utilisation and veld 

deterioration. Proper fences that comply with official specifications for the types of animals 

kept on the property are essential to ensure safety and security. Roads need to be maintained 

to allow access to the whole area and to enhance the game viewing experience. Proper general 

management on any wildlife area create a good impression and contribute to the success of 

the enterprise. 

OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of this study are to evaluate: 

• water provision 

• fences 

• roads 

WATER PROVISION 

The optimum utilisation of the veld on wildlife ranches is dependent on adequate and well- 

distributed water points. A Piosphere is defined as an ecological system of interactions 

between a watering point, its surrounding vegetation and the grazing animal. Under natural 

conditions water points are not usually permanent in Southern Africa, which results in 

relatively light utilisation of the area around waterholes. However, on wildlife areas the zones 

adjacent to watering points are more heavily used and subject to higher grazing pressure than 

areas further distant from waterholes. The effect of watering points on rangeland condition 

does not exceed an area of 200 m. Species diversity declines in this area. In natural summer 

grazing areas, Tragus berteronianus and Enneapogon cenchroides increase whereas Digitaria 

eriantha decreases. The woody plant fraction changes to species more resistant to browsing 

such as Acacia tortilis and Acacia karroo. Amaranthus thunbergii, Tribulus terrestris and 

Alternanthera pungens are associated with the vicinity of artificial watering points. A shift 

from perennial to annual species is observed in the area, where new waterholes are 

constructed. Trampling has a higher influence than grazing in wildlife areas around 

waterholes. Because of removal of plant cover and trampling, soil compaction increases with 

increasing vicinity to water. 


Surface erosion will reduce water infiltration and excessive water run-off will lead to further 

erosion. Soil types susceptible to accelerated erosion such as duplex soils should be avoided 

when constructing new waterholes. The distance between watering points also has significant 

effect on the impact of waterholes on the condition of the veld. To reduce the impact of 

trampling and soil erosion it is advisable that water points are clustered and separated by large 

waterless areas. This regime gives the waterless areas the possibility to rest and recover. 

Rangeland utilisation in areas of water supply is relatively low, due to the distribution of 

grazing pressure among several watering points rather than focussing on one waterhole. 

Trampling of rangeland in the immediate vicinity of watering points is minimized. Clustered 

watering points are best located within a radius of 500 m, in order to split up large herds. 

Smaller animal groups watering at the same time reduces the time spent at the waterhole and 

therefore, causes less trampling. 

The distance between individual waterholes also influences animal behaviour. Impalas forage 

as far as 2.2 km, zebra 7.2 km and blue wildebeest 7.4 km distant from waterholes. Mobile, 

water-dependant large herbivores forage up to 10 km from water in the dry season. 

Populations of roan antelope, sable antelope and reedbuck decline if the distance between 

permanent water does not exceed 10 km. Roan antelope and sable antelope require tall grass 

and endure for 4 to 5 days without drinking. For these animals areas should be provided, that 

are farther than 10 km away from water. Waterbuck will also only flourish if densities of 

other species are kept low. Therefore, the number and placement of available water points 

needs to be carefully balanced. Mobile, water-dependent animals such as Burchell´s zebra, 

buffalo and blue wildebeest will benefit from medium water point densities such as one 

cluster per 100 to 300 km 2 . Non-mobile, water-dependant animals such as impala and warthog 

prosper in degraded habitat with sparse cover and high density of watering points, such as one 

cluster of watering points per 0.8 to 20 km 2 . Areas for water independent animals such as 

eland, klipspringer and steenbok should not have artificial watering points. It is recommend to 

provide areas the size of approximately 20 km 2 , where water is supplied, alternating with 

areas of the same size, where no waterholes exist. This should promote an increase in species 

diversity. Browsers such as black rhinoceros, giraffe and kudu are less affected by water point 

regimes than grazers, because of higher moisture content in browse than in graze. 

For maintenance of a wide diversity of animals when focussing on tourism and game viewing, 

areas within 10 km reach of permanent water are recommended to comprise 70 to 80 percent 

of the property. In that case one existing permanent watering point per 400 to 600 km 2 should 

be stabilised. If less than 70 percent of the area is within a 10 km radius of a water point, 

water should be supplied to semi-permanent pools and pans, or even in temporary pans. 


If more than 80 percent of the property is within 10 km reach of permanent water, artificial 

watering points should be closed, beginning with those that are not stabilising natural semi- 

permanent supplies. If animal production for hunting or life sales of water-dependent animals 

is the main purpose of the enterprise, relatively higher densities of waterholes are 

recommended. If more than 80 percent of the area is within 5 km reach of permanent water in 

the dry season, rotation of watering points should be accomplished. If less than 80 percent of 

the property is within 5 km reach of a water point, water should be supplied to semi- 

permanent pans and pools in streams or even to temporary pans and pools. Generally the 

provision of one water point per 1000 ha is considered to be sufficient. 

When constructing new waterholes, certain criteria concerning the animals and their 

behaviour as well as the environment need to be observed: 

• Sufficient water must be available and used economically. 

• The drinking preferences of different animal species need to be considered when 

designing the waterhole. 

• Interspecies competition has to be kept low at the waterhole, to limit game loss. 

• The water quality must be suitable for game. High salt content of the water is 

detrimental. 

• Shade must be available in the vicinity of the waterhole, to provide game with 

resting places after drinking. 

• The waterhole must be controllable, opened or closed, to influence game 

movement. 

• Valves need to be checked regularly against damage through rust. 

• Ball valves need to be protected against destruction by animals such as baboon. 

• Pipes need to be buried for protection against animals and from ultraviolet rays. 

Temperature fluctuations decrease the lifespan of the pipes and high temperatures 

can impede the water quality. 

• Pumps should be placed in houses of at least 3 x 3 x 2 m for protection against 

animals such as buffalo and rhinoceros. 

• Inspection covers should be installed every 200 to 300 m to allow air release from 

pipes as well as maintenance. 

• The ground should be level. 

• Waterholes should not be placed on soil susceptible to erosion. 

• The Waterhole should look as natural as possible. 


Several different types of waterholes provide water: Rivers, natural pans, pans with artificial 

water supply, artificial earth dams or cement dams and troughs. Earth dams are artificial 

depressions in the ground, filled with run-off water from the veld or water from a reservoir or 

borehole. When correctly placed these waterholes seldom lead to soil erosion. Sandy soils are 

ideal for such waterholes. Dams on soils with relatively high clay content loose less water, but 

trampling and erosion causes problems in such areas. Cement dams resemble earth dams, 

where dam floor and rim are fortified. The transition from dam foundation to surrounding soil 

needs to be level and smooth, to avoid injuries of animals visiting the waterhole. Pans with 

artificial water supply and natural pans with only seasonal water blend in more naturally with 

the environment. 


Although Marloth Park had sufficient access to water along the Crocodile River, without 

requiring any additional water sources on the property, the erection of a new game fence 

along boundary effectively denies access. The availability of resources on Marloth Park is, 

however, not a limiting factor as not only is natural open water available, but many owners 

have constructed their own little waterholes on their properties. This effectively gives all 

animals’ access to water without much competition, reducing the concentration of large 

animal groups around waterholes and limiting the formation of piospheres. The disadvantage 

of this practice is the uniformed utilisation of the natural resources, without any areas with 

reduced impact. This will in time lead to more uniform vegetation formations, reducing 

ecotonal effects and thus habitat diversity. This will indirectly lower species diversity for 

Marloth Park. 

It is recommended that owner’s co-operation be obtained in managing water access to animals 

on Marloth Park, through education and guidance. This can be achieved by making available 

a standard, acceptable design (Figure 13 and Figure 14) for a waterhole with a regulating 

valve. All waterhole locations must then be recorded, and using the plant communities 

identified, these waterholes can then be opened or closed on a rotational basis to induce some 

form of rotational resting. This action will facilitate fragmented utilisation; increase habitat 

diversity and ultimately species diversity. 

In the interim period, it is recommended that all owners be requested to close water points 

that are located in or adjacent to the degraded Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus 

Low bushland plant communities, until after successful rehabilitation of these areas. 


100 mm 

100 mm 

Ground level 

100 mm 

15000 mm 

Plan 

100 mm 100 mm 

Water 

520 mm 

2000 mm 

Cross section A - A 

A 

A 

30º 

100 mm 

Wall 

100 mm 

Figure 13: Design of a shallow, rectangular waterhole sunk into the ground 

520 mm 


Stones 

Ground level 

Reinforced concrete 

Water 

3 m 

0.6 m 

Cover 

Connecting pipe 

Supply 

Figure 14: Cross section design of a shallow, round waterhole sunk into the ground 


FENCELINE SPECIFICATIONS 

Fencing does not comply with the principle of providing as natural conditions as possible on a 

wildlife reserve. With game moving in on a reserve becoming the property of the reserve 

owners, fences are necessary to keep the game within the reserve boundaries. Fencing 

becomes even more imperative if valuable animals are kept on the wildlife ranch. 

Furthermore, certain types of game pose a threat to public safety if not confined properly. 

Several factors that determine the efficiency of a game fence such as the type of game being 

kept, the terrain of the area, the type of material being used, and the availability of the 

material and finances. Specifications of the local conservation authority also have to be 

considered. When erecting a fence it is of great importance that the fence should be strong, 

firm and of good quality. The height fence is determined by the game that it kept. Animals 

such as eland, impala, kudu, mountain reedbuck and waterbuck jump over fences, while 

animals such as duiker, gemsbok, klipspringer, red hartebeest, steenbok and warthog crawl 

underneath. Small animals are capable of moving freely through fences, and animals such as 

buffalo and rhinoceros simply break through. A 17 to 21wire strand fence of 2.25 m to 2.4 m 

is high enough for fencing in those animals that are capable of jumping. Closer spacing of 80 

to 125 mm of the lower wire strands in contrast to 130 to 170 mm of the top wires prevents 

animals from crawling through the fence. Animals such as warthogs that dig are more 

difficult to control and mostly allowed to move freely. Three types of fence posts are used in 

the construction of fences: Straining posts, line posts and droppers. The straining posts are the 

main anchors of a fence and should be strong enough to withstand the strain exerted on them 

by the fence. On plains straining posts should be 100 to 300 m apart from each other. Line 

posts are erected at equal intervals between the straining posts. The line posts form the core of 

the fence and ensure elasticity if positioned 8 to 15 m apart. The droppers are placed at equal 

intervals between the line posts at distances ranging from 1 to 3 m. They aim to strengthen the 

fence and ensure even spacing of the wires. The wire itself can be barbed or smooth as well as 

single or double stranded. It is either bound or stapled to the respective post. 

Certain circumstances necessitate the erection of an electric fence around a wildlife area. An 

electrified fence facilitates the confinement of large or dangerous game such as elephants, 

hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses and predators. An energizer generates a regular electric pulse. 

As soon as an animal touches the electric wire, it experiences an electric shock. This shock 

usually discourages the animal from crossing the fence. The requirements for an electric fence 

depend on the animal to be restrained. Different species require different specifications. 

Upgrading a game fence to an electric game fence is relatively inexpensive and requires low 

labour input relative to the degree of effectiveness gained. The minimum requirements are 

one energiser per 10 km of game fences. 


For safety reasons these requirements should be observed right from the start. The voltage of 

the fence should always be at a minimum of 4000 V. Some game will test the fence regularly 

and might escape if the voltage drops. Number and height of the wire strands used in the 

electric fence depends on the game to be confined. The standard number is three strands of 

wire. The height is determined by the height of the animal in question. The animal should be 

shocked in front of the shoulders to prompt it to move backwards. A shock behind the 

shoulders will cause the animal to move toward the fence. Several components are necessary 

to construct an electric fence: Energisers, wire, insulators, digital voltmeters and lightening 

protectors. The length of the fence and number of electrified wires determines the number of 

energisers required. The insulators need to be strong enough to withstand the tension placed 

on it, and durable enough to withstand fire. Lightening protectors should also be installed to 

avoid damage of the fence during thunderstorms. The energiser, as well as the fence itself, 

must not come into contact with power lines or telephone poles. A minimum distance of 2 m 

should be observed. Warning signs should be mounted along the fence. 


The fence-line around Lionspruit Game Reserve and the newly constructed fence along the 

Crocodile River effectively enclose Marloth Park, limiting animal migrations. The fence-lines 

are of acceptable design to contain all animals, with the exception of warthogs that will 

always find a weakness in any fence. Although all fence-lines are electrified, affectivity is 

only controlled through functionality and regular inspections. It is recommended that a 

regular fence-line patrol inspection be implemented and any breaches and defects be repaired 

immediately. No other mayor internal fences, with exception of the municipal office complex, 

dumping site and depot, are found on Marloth Park. 

Although the road surface barriers on Olifants Drive, constructed at the entrance gates to 

Marloth Park, should be effective in keeping these animals in, it is unfortunately not effective 

in keeping poachers out. The lack of security is a matter of concern, as no effective population 

regulative measures can be applied if accurate record keeping of natalities and mortalities are 

not implemented. 

ROADS 

The placement, construction and use of roads have various ecological effects and need to be 

considered carefully. Roads cause disturbance of the natural environment, because soil is 

compacted, water run-off increased and soil erosion promoted. Important ecological effects of 

roads are: 


• The destruction of plants and small animals during construction works. 

• The creation of erosion problems leading to habitat deterioration. 

• That animals use roads as routes between watering points and grazing areas. 

• That animals such as impala and blue wildebeest sleep on roads during rainy or 

moonless nights. 

• The attraction of hares and steenbok to pioneer plants along roadsides. 

• That snakes often lie on roads when the environmental temperatures are low. 

• That ground-nesting birds often breed next to roads. 

• The provision of water out of season by quarries near roads, which can lead to 

over-utilisation of certain areas. 

Roads are constructed for four main reasons: Tourism, hunting, maintenance and firebreaks. 

The most important purpose for Marloth Park is to provide owners access to their properties 

and to give maintenance personnel access to all areas. A secondary benefit of the roads is for 

viewing wildlife and experiencing nature on Marloth Park. The current road infrastructure is 

well developed and traverses all vegetation types and plant communities, giving access to a 

diversity of habitats. For roads to be used as effective firebreaks a minimum width of 8 m is 

generally recommended. The only two roads that current comply with this recommendation is 

Olifants Drive and Renoster Road. 


The road network on Marloth Park is highly developed, and no new roads need to be 

constructed. However, some of these roads need maintenance, especially after the rainfall 

season. It is recommended that water run-off be improved, and woody vegetation be removed 

for a distance of not less that 1 m, and not more that 2 m from the edge of the road. This will 

reduce the potential of accidental collision with antelope that want to cross the roads, and act 

as a more effective barrier against runaway wildfires. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING 

Adaptive management is a term used to describe the system of making management decisions 

based on past mistakes. It is a useful management tool where decisions need to be made 

without having all the scientific facts. Adaptive management depends on three important 

monitoring programmes. 

• Measuring the performance of animals 

• Measure the change in vegetation 

• Recording environmental condition 


Adaptive management 

Applying adaptive management require baseline data that can be used as a reference system in 

measuring change. This study will thus serve as reference system for future management 

decisions. By monitoring these changes, the effects of applied management can be gauged. 

However, no management decision can be made without clear set objectives. Periodically, 

fixed points on Marloth Park must be surveyed and the veld condition compared to the initial 

baseline data gathered. If any degradation is occurred in that time period, management 

decisions, such as stocking rate, must be re-evaluated and adjusted to achieve the objective or 

desired results. A new management decision must then be applied and the process repeated. If 

this process continues long enough a model specifically adapted to Marloth Park can be 

devised. It is crucial that adequate records be kept on all aspects of veld and wildlife 

management. Without adequate records constructive progress will be vague and 

unsubstantiated. 

Monitoring 

Monitoring of the habitat aims at purposeful and repeated examination of the state or 

condition of the veld that involves the frequent testing for differences between baseline data 

or initial surveys and follow-up surveys. Certain components of the habitat can be regarded as 

key components as they are indicators of change. These components are rainfall, soil erosion, 

permanent surface water, fire, vegetation structure, cover and composition, animal 

productivity, numbers and growth rate. 

Rainfall 

Long-term rainfall is important for determining trends of change in vegetation. Rainfall has 

the greatest influence on the productivity of vegetation and ecological capacity. Although 

rainfall should ideally be recorded on Marloth Park, sufficiently reliable data can be obtained 

from the weather station on Malelane. 

Habitat 

To conduct monitoring surveys of the habitat, fixed survey sites should be established on 

Marloth Park, in each of the plant communities. Veld condition should then be measured and 

evaluated against the existing baseline data. 

Game 

The seasonal distribution and numbers of game should be monitored continually and 

population growth rates calculated. These can then be used to determine the health of the 

population. 


The age and sex ratios of animals must also be recorded, as well as natural mortalities or other 

causes of death. A professional game count should be conducted annually to determine 

optimum stocking rates to be applied on Marloth Park. 


Fifteen survey sites (Figure 15) with initial baseline data (Appendix 5) have been established 

on Marloth Park. These survey sites are considered representative of the vegetation, and 

require annual monitoring to determine change. Although veld condition can be determined 

relatively easy by repeating the technique used in veld condition assessment, analyzing the 

woody vegetation requires professional analysis and interpretation. However, a photographic 

record taken at each site (Appendix 6) can be used to visually assess the woody vegetation. 

These photographs must again be taken each year during February, for comparative purposes. 

It is recommended that a professional re-evaluation again be requested after 5 years, if 

recommendations or guidelines have been implemented. 

Game counts should be conducted annually, also recording sex and age ratios. This will 

facilitate the determination of optimum stocking rates and maximum production. 


Figure 15: Location of the monitoring sites on Marloth Park 


Appendix 1 

A list of tree species identified on Marloth Park 

Scientific name Common name 

Acacia caffra Common hook-thorn 

Acacia exuvialis Flaky thorn 

Acacia grandicornuta Horned thorn 

Acacia karroo Sweet thorn 

Acacia nigrescens Knob thorn 

Acacia nilotica subsp. kraussiana Scented thorn 

Acacia senegal var. rostrata Three-hook thorn 

Acacia swazica Swazi acacia 

Acacia tortilis subsp. heteracantha Umbrella thorn 

Albizia harveyi Common false thorn 

Balanites maughamii Green thorn 

Berchemia zeyheri Red ivory 

Bolusanthus speciosus Tree wisteria 

Carissa bispinosa Forest num-num 

Cassine transvaalensis Transvaal saffron 

Cereus jamacaru Queen of the night 

Combretum apiculatum subsp. apiculatum Red bushwillow 

Combretum collinum subsp. collinum Variable bushwillow 

Combretum hereroense Russet bushwillow 

Combretum imberbe Leadwood 

Combretum molle Velvet bushwillow 

Combretum zeyheri Large-fruited bushwillow 

Commiphora mollis Velvet corkwood 

Commiphora schimperi Glossy-leaved corkwood 

Dalbergia melanoxylon Zebra wood 

Dichrostachys cinerea Sickle bush 

Diospyros mespiliformis Jackal-berry 

Dombeya rotundifolia Common wild pear 

Euclea crispa Blue guarri 

Euclea divinorum Magic guarri 

Euphorbia tirucalli Rubber euphorbia 

Ficus abutilifolia Large-leaved rock fig 

Ficus sycomorus Common cluster fig 

Flueggea virosa White-berry bush 

Galpinia transvaalica Tranvaal privet 

Gardenia volkensii subsp. volkensii Savanna gardenia 

Grewia bicolor White raisin 

Grewia flava Velvet raisin 

Grewia flavescens var. flavescens Sandpaper raisin 

Grewia hexamita Giant raisin 

Grewia monticola Silver raisin 

Grewia villosa Mallow raisin 

Gymnosporia buxifolia Common spike-thorn 

Alien species 

No known common name 

Declared weed and invader species Category 1 




Appendix 1 (Continue) 

A list of tree species identified on Marloth Park 


Hyphaene coriacea Lala palm 

Kigelia africana Sausage tree 

Lannea schweinfurthii var. stuhlmannii False marula 

Lantana camara Lantana 

Lantana rugosa Bird’s brandy 

Lonchocarpus capassa Apple leaf 

Mimusops obovata Red milkwood 

Manilkara concolor Zulu milkberry 

Mundulea sericea Corky bark 

Mystroxylon aethiopica Saffron tree 

Opuntia ficus-indica Sweet prickly pear 

Ormocarpum trichocarpum Caterpillar bush 

Ozoroa paniculosa var. salicina Common resin tree 

Peltophorum africanum Weeping wattle 

Pterocarpus rotundifolius Round-leaved teak 

Rhus guenzii Thorny karree 

Schotia brachypetala Weeping boer-bean 

Schrebera alata Wild jasmine 

Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra Marula 

Spirostachys africana Tamboti 

Sterculia rogersii Common star-chestnut 

Strychnos madagascariensis Black monkey orange 

Strychnos spinosa Green monkey orange 

Terminalia prunioides Lowveld cluster leaf 

Terminalia sericea Silver cluster leaf 

Trichilia emetica Natal mahogany 

Ximenia americana var. microphylla Blue sourplum 

Ximenia caffra Sourplum 

Zanthoxylum capense Small knobwood 

Ziziphus mucronata Buffalo-thorn 

Alien species 






Appendix 2 

A list of grass species identified on Marloth Park 


Andropogon chinensis Hairy blue grass 

Aristida adscensionis Annual three-awn 

Aristida bipartita Rolling grass 

Aristida congesta subsp. barbicollis Spreading three-awn 

Aristida congesta subsp. congesta Tassel three-awn 

Aristida scrabivalvis Purple three-awn 

Aristida stipitata subsp. stipitata Long-awned three-awn 

Bothriochloa radicans Stinking grass 

Brachiaria deflexa False signal grass 

Cenchrus ciliaris Blue baffalo grass 

Chloris virgata Feathered chloris 

Cynodon dactylon Couch grass 

Dactyloctenium aegytium Common crowsfoot 

Dactylotenium australe L.M. grass 

Dicanthium annulatum Vlei finger grass 

Digitaria eriantha Finger grass 

Diplachne eleusine Large scale grass 

Echinochloa colona Jungle rice 

Enneapogon scoparius Bottlebrush grass 

Eragrostis aspera Rough love grass 

Eragrostis curvula Weeping love grass 

Eragrostis gummiflua Gum grass 

Eragrostis lehmanniana var. lehmanniana Lehmann’s love grass 

Eragrostis micrantha Finesse grass 

Eragrostis plana Tough love grass 

Eragrostis racemosa Narrow heart love grass 

Eragrostis rigidior Broadleaved curly leaf 

Eragrostis superba Sawtooth love grass 

Eragrostis trichophora Hairy love grass 

Fingerhuthia africana Thimble grass 

Heteropogon contortus Spear grass 

Hyparrhenia tamba Blue thatching grass 

Hyparrhenia filipendula Fine thatching grass 

Hyperthelia dissoluta Yellow thatching grass 

Melinis repens Natal red-top 

Panicum coloratum White buffalo grass 

Panicum deustum Broad-leaved panicum 

Panicum maximum Guinea grass 

Panicum natalense Natal panicum 

Paspalum notatum Bahia grass 

Perotis patens Cat’s tail 

Melinis nerviglumis Bristle-leaved red-top 

Pogonarthria squarrosa Herringbone grass 

Alien species 







A list of grass species identified on Marloth Park 


Schmidtia pappophoroides Sand quick 

Setaria finita 

Setaria incrassata Large-seed bristle grass 

Setaria sphacelata var. sphacelata Common bristle grass 

Setaria verticilata Sticky bristle grass 

Sorghum bicolor Common wild sorghum 

Sorghum versicolor Black-seed wild sorghum 

Sporobolus ioclados Pan dropseed 


Sporobolus pyramidalis Ratstail dropseed 

Themeda triandra Red grass 

Tragus berteronianus Common carrot-seed grass 

Trichoneura grandiglumis Small rolling grass 

Urochloa mosambicensis Bushveld signal grass 

Alien species 






Appendix 3 

A list of forbs species identified on Marloth Park 


Abutilon austro-africanum 

Acalypha indica 

Acanthospermum prostrata Prostate starbur 

Achyranthes aspera Chaff flower 

Adenium multiflorum Impala lily 

Adenium swazicum Summer impala lily 

Agathisanthemum bojeri 

Agave sisalana Sisal 

Ageratum conyzoides 

Aloe chabaudii 

Aloe dabenorisana 

Aloe marlothii Mountain aloe 

Alternanthera pungens Paperthorn 

Anthospermum herbaceum 

Aptosimum lineare 

Aspilia mossambicensis 

Barleria lancifolia Rankklits 

Bidens pilosa Blackjack 

Blepharis subvolubilis var. subvolubilis 

Boerhavia erecta Spiderling 

Boophane disticha Poison bulb 

Bulbostylis burchellii 

Ceratotheca triloba Wild foxglove 

Chaemacrista alba 

Chaemacrista mimosoides Fishbone cassia 

Chaemasyce hirta Red milkweed 

Chaemasyce inaequlatera Smooth creeping milkweed 

Chamaesyce neopolycnemoides 

Cissus cornifolia 

Cleome maculata 

Cleome angustifolia 

Clivia caulescens 

Coccinia adoensis 

Coleochloa setifera 

Commelina eckloniana 

Commelina africana 

Commelina erecta 

Conyza bonariensis Flax-leaf fleabane 

Corbichonia decumbens 

Cotyledon orbiculata Plakkie 

Crabbea angustifolia 

Crabbea hirsuta 

Crotolaria burkeana 

Alien species 









Cucumis hirsutus Wild cucumber 

Cucumis zeyheri 

Cyperus cyperoides 

Cyperus esculentus Yellow nutsedge 

Cyperus obtusiflorus Geelbiesie 

Cyperus rupestris 

Cyphostemma lanigerum Wild grape 

Cyphostemma sp. Undescribed 

Dalechampia capensis 

Datura stramomium Thorn apple 

Dicoma tomentosa 

Dyschoriste fischeri 

Evolvulus alsinoides 

Felicia muricata 

Galinsoga parviflora Gallant soldier 

Geigeria burkei Vermeerbos 

Gomphocarpus burchellii 

Gomphrena celosioides Bachelor’s button 

Gossypium herbaceum subsp. africanum Wild cotton 

Guilleminea densa Carrot weed 

Harrisia martinii Moon cactus 

Heimia myrtifolia 

Helichrysum rugulosum 

Heliotropium ciliatum 

Hermannia boraginiflora Gombossie 

Hermannia tomentosa 

Hibiscus cannabinus 

Hibiscus calyphyllus Wild stockrose 

Hibiscus penduculatus 

Hibiscus trionum Bladderweed 

Hypertelis salsoloides var. salsoloides 

Indigofera filipes 

Indigofera schimperi var. schimperi 

Ipomoea obscura Wild petunia 

Ipomoea pupurea Common morning glory 

Jatropha zeyheri 

Justicia flava 

Justicia protracta subsp. protracta 

Kalanchoe paniculata Krimpsiektebossie 

Kedrostis africana 

Kohoutia cynanchica 

Kyllinga alba Witbiesie 

Alien species 









Kyphocarpa angustifolia 

Laggera crispata 

Lantana rugosa Bird’s brandy 

Ledebouria cooperi 

Leonotis ocymifolia Wild dagga 

Leucas glabrata var. glabrata 

Lippia javanica Laventelbossie 

Melhania forbesii 

Melhania prostrata 

Merremia tridentata subsp. angustifolia 

Ocimum canum 

Oxalis corniculata Creeping sorrel 

Oxalis semiloba Sorrel 

Pavonia burchellii 

Pegolettia senegalensis 

Pellaea calomelanos 

Phragmites australis Common reed 

Phyllanthus parvulus var. parvulus Dye bush 

Plexipus hederaceus var. hederaceus 

Polygala sphenoptera 

Portulaca kermisina 

Portulaca qudrifida Wild purslane 

Protasparagus setaceus Asparagus fern 

Protosparagus suaveolens Wild asparagus 

Pupalia lappacea 

Rhoicissus tridentata Bushman’s grape 

Rhynchosia caribaea 

Rhynchosia totta var. totta 

Ricinus communis Castor bean 

Richardia brasiliensis Tropical richardia 

Sanseviera aethiopica Bowstring hemp 

Schoenoplectus corymbosus 

Senecio venosus 

Senna italica 

Sesamum triphyllum Wild sesame 

Sida alba Spiny sida 

Sida cordifolia Flannel weed 

Sida pseudocordifolia 

Sida rhombifolia Arrow-leaf sida 

Solanum incanum Bitter apple 

Solanum panduriforme Poison apple 

Solanum sisynbrifolium Wild tomato 

Alien species 









Tagetes minuta Tall khaki weed 

Tephrosia pupurea 

Tragia rupestris 

Tribulus terrestris Dubbeltjie 

Tricliceras laceratum 

Trifolium repens var. repens White clover 

Truimfetta rhomboidea 

Typha capensis Bulrush 

Vernonia oligocephala Bitterbossie 

Vernonia poskeana 

Walafrida tenuifolia 

Walthera indica Meidebossie 

Xanthium strumarium Large cocklebur 

Xerophyta retinervis Monkey’s tail 

Zinnia peruviana Wildejakopregop 

Alien species 






Appendix 4: Alien invaders found on Marloth Park 

Sisal Agave sisalana Queen-of-the-night Cereus jamacaru 

Moon cactus Harrisia martini Lantana Lantana camara 


Appendix 4: Alien invaders found on Marloth Park 

Prickly pear Opuntia ficus-indica Castor bean Ricinus communis 

Wild tomato Solanum sisymbriifolium Large cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 


Appendix 5: Frequency occurrence of grass species on site number MP 01, based on ecological categories 

Longitude: 31º 45' 29.8" Photograph: 1 

Latitude: 25º 23' 30.8" 

Grass species 

Decreasers 



Cenchrus ciliaris 

Digitaria eriantha 5 



Panicum deustum 43 

Panicum maximum 10 

Panicum natalense 




Sub-total 58 





Sub-total 0 





Bothriochloa radicans 

Dactylotenium aegyptium 2 




Eragrostis lehmanniana 5 




Eragrostis superba 




Schmidtia pappophoroides 



Urochloa mosambicensis 3 

Sub-total 10 


Aristida adscensionis 

Aristida bipartita 

Aristida congesta var. barbicollis 





Enneapogon scoparius 


Tragus berteronianus 32 

Forbs 

Sub-total 32 

Veld condition score 652 

Year of survey 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 22' 36.8" 

Grass species 




Digitaria eriantha 



Panicum deustum 

Panicum maximum 





17 

Sub-total 17 





Sub-total 0 






Dactylotenium aegyptium 




Eragrostis lehmanniana 






3 






2 


Sub-total 8 







13 





2 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 59 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 22' 49.8" 

Grass species 

Decreasers 








Panicum maximum 4 

Panicum natalense 2 




Sub-total 62 





Sub-total 0 














Eragrostis superba 2 




Schmidtia pappophoroides 2 




Sub-total 7 


Aristida adscensionis 5 

Aristida bipartita 3 

Aristida congesta var. barbicollis 2 








Forbs 

Sub-total 34 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 21' 55.2" 

Grass species 







8 







8 

Sub-total 84 





Sub-total 0 





















2 


Sub-total 5 











4 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 14 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 21' 58.7" 

Grass species 













1 

Sub-total 53 





Sub-total 0 














4 








1 


Sub-total 8 









16 



4 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 34 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 20' 42.2" 

Grass species 







28 







8 

Sub-total 72 





Sub-total 0 












4 



1 








1 


Sub-total 9 




5 




3 





1 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 19 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 20' 50.7" 

Grass species 







6 







10 

Sub-total 70 





Sub-total 0 














2 





6 




2 


Sub-total 13 




4 








2 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 18 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 20' 12.3" 

Grass species 













8 

Sub-total 78 





Sub-total 0 






















Sub-total 3 




10 








4 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 22 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 20' 42.4" 

Grass species 







4 







4 

Sub-total 66 





Sub-total 0 


















2 



4 

Trichoneura grandiglumis 2 


Sub-total 11 




10 








2 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 26 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 21' 38.8" 

Grass species 







2 







16 

Sub-total 62 





Sub-total 0 


















2 




4 


Sub-total 9 







4 





8 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 32 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 20' 35.9" 

Grass species 







4 







8 

Sub-total 60 





Sub-total 0 














10 

Eragrostis superba 4 







2 


Sub-total 19 











10 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 18 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 20' 07.4" 

Grass species 







1 







6 

Sub-total 53 





Sub-total 0 





















4 


Sub-total 7 




2 








2 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 36 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 20' 57.0" 

Grass species 







8 




14 




16 

Sub-total 82 





Sub-total 0 





















4 


Sub-total 7 











Tragus berteronianus 

2 

Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 2 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 20' 07.7" 

Grass species 













6 

Sub-total 24 





Sub-total 0 






















Sub-total 3 




8 








2 


Forbs 

Decreasers 

Sub-total 34 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 




Latitude: 25º 21' 28.9" 

Grass species 

Decreasers 













Sub-total 54 





Sub-total 0 






















Sub-total 3 


Aristida adscensionis 6 










Forbs 

Sub-total 46 



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 


Appendix 6: Photographs of each vegetation-monitoring site on Marloth Park 

Monitoring site MP 01 Monitoring site MP 02 



Appendix 6: Photographs of each vegetation-monitoring site on Marloth Park (Continue) 




Appendix 6: Photographs of each vegetation-monitoring site on Marloth Park (Continue) 




Appendix 6: Photographs of each vegetation-monitoring site on Marloth Park 


Monitoring site MP 15

Marloth Park Management Plan. - Nkomazi Local Municipality

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

Delete template?

Save as template?