Fisheries in the Southern Border Zone of Takamanda - Impact ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14 Comiskey and Dallmeier identified at the outset, with the goal of defining the point at which inaction will imperil the population. Where sufficient knowledge of the biology of populations is lacking, it is particularly challenging to determine the proper threshold and identify the appropriate management response. That is why initial assessments and more in-depth studies are so important. 5.2 Implement Management Implementation of management and subsequent monitoring enables researchers to decide whether they are achieving the desired conservation goals. At TFR, implementing the management plan may prove difficult because of the tenuous legal status of the Reserve and because sufficient personnel and financing are not yet available. Therefore, monitoring should be aimed at providing baseline information that can be used to establish both a legal mandate and a conservation strategy. As an example, current construction of the road between Mamfe and Akwaya is likely to increase immigration into the area with a subsequent increase in land clearance and bushmeat extraction. Monitoring, using remote sensing, can help evaluate the extent and type of land-use changes in the region caused by the road (Slayback this volume), and the amount of habitat fragmentation can be correlated to impacts on species such as large mammals (Sunderland-Groves and Maisel this volume). The information can identify areas of the Reserve that are most at risk and provide the basis for implementing conservation strategies. Market surveys can provide an evaluation of local bushmeat consumption and can be correlated to mammal survey data from the field. 5.3 Assessment and Monitoring The next stage of the adaptive management process addresses monitoring options to establish potential alternatives for gathering additional knowledge over a shorter period of time. The two most typical kinds of monitoring for this purpose are baseline monitoring and management-based monitoring. Baseline monitoring elicits information to increase understanding of how natural processes operate on biotic components in the Takamanda: the Biodiversity of an African Rainforest study area. In TFR, baseline monitoring has been employed for vegetation along the altitudinal gradient (Sunderland et al. this volume). Information obtained over time from the plots add to our knowledge of the dynamics of these habitat types and constitute the baseline for making management recommendations related to forest resources in the Reserve and other forests of the region. In the adaptive management process, monitoring is also linked to the implementation of some form of management, providing information on whether management practices are achieving the desired outcome and, if not, pointing to needed changes in the management approach. At TFR, information from monitoring through remote sensing of the road construction could well be used to evaluate land-use changes. Monitoring of large mammal populations, as well as market surveys, will indicate the degree to which increased access for bushmeat hunting caused by the road is impacting those populations. 5.3.1 Monitoring design Initial assessments provide a baseline to study long-term changes. Subsequent assessments help researchers evaluate changes that can be related to ecosystem health. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that ecosystems are extremely complex entities, primarly because of numerous ecological interactions among different biotic and edaphic variables in space and across time (for example, Diamond and Case 1986). A challenge for any monitoring program is to distinguish the changes that are inherent in the natural population— the noise—from those that are influenced by external factors—the signal. In monitoring, we compare the results over time to those gleaned from baseline monitoring to detect whether change is an actual “signal” or merely “noise.” Monitoring protocols should take into consideration sampling design, data management and analysis, interpretation of results, and reporting mechanisms. Objectives must specify the limits of change permitted before management action must be taken, and each
Adaptive management objective must be realistic, specific, and measurable. For example, qualitative monitoring (habitat condition) is quicker and less expensive to conduct than quantitative monitoring (estimates of the frequency and abundance of a species). However, qualitative monitoring is often more variable because of the differences among observers. This has important implications—not only in distinguishing real changes from those caused by sampling variability but also for management actions. 5.3.2 Spatial and temporal scales Biodiversity assessment and monitoring plans should be carried out at both local and regional scales to provide decision-makers with high-quality data and costeffective choices. At the spatial scale in TFR, sampling should take into consideration proximity to local communities and variability in habitats along the Reserve’s altitudinal gradient. For example, the current vegetation monitoring strategy is focused on natural forest habitats at different elevations (Sunderland et al. this volume); future strategies might seek to gather baseline information in areas that are under management by local communities, thus increasing our understanding of human impacts on biodiversity. At the temporal scale, sampling in TFR must take into account the variability in biotic communities during the wet and dry seasons because seasons affect our ability to detect noticeable changes in biodiversity over time. 5.3.3 Sampling design Sampling strategies can be systematic, random, or stratified, depending on the taxa and sampling objectives. Random sampling, where points have an equal probability of being sampled, was used to conduct general collections of plants in TFR (Sunderland et al. this volume). Systematic sampling (employing a grid or transect) was conducted for the mammal and ape surveys (Sunderland-Groves et al. this volume). Stratified sampling, which involves the definition of different habitats within the reserve, was used to monitor vegetation (Sunderlant et al. this volume) and bird populations (Languy and Motombe this volume). Ultimately, the most appropriate method will stem from the specific objectives defined for the monitoring program. The number and size of the samples will be determined by the precision required for monitoring. If the monitoring program is attempting to detect a small change, then a large number of samples are needed. It is also necessary to decide whether the samples should be permanent or temporary. Permanent points allow for repeated sampling, although they cost more in time and money to establish. In TFR, the large ape populations are known to have a low density, but accurate estimates are difficult because even during intense survey, only a few sightings have been registered (Sunderland-Groves et al. this volume). It will be very difficult to record precise estimates of changes in ape density because current personnel and financial resources are not sufficient to enact the large-scale sampling strategy that is needed. For vegetation, the investment in sampling will be significantly less because the same populations, which are stationary, can be monitored over time (Sunderland et al. this volume). 5.3.4 Data collection and management Data collection entails the measurement and assimilation of information in the field under consistent standards. During assessments conducted to date in TFR, assistants and local guides have been trained specifically for this task. Standard protocols were used to facilitate cross-site comparisons and evaluation in multi-taxa monitoring. Accurate transfer of data from field data sheets and secure storage of information are required to ensure the availability of credible data for analysis. Managing the datasets includes data entry, verification, validation, archiving, and documentation. To assist in the detection of errors at TFR, the vegetation team used the Biodiveristy Monitoring Database (BioMon), which incorporates validity checks into the process of transferring data from the field forms to the computer (Comiskey and Mosher 1999). In planning the monitoring program, the costs of data management should be included in long-term budgets. 15 SI/MAB Series #8, 2003
Page 2 and 3: Smithsonian Institution SI/MAB Biod
Page 4 and 5: ii 10. Fisheries in the Southern Bo
Page 6 and 7: Mercy Abwe Dione Dept. of Biology,
Page 8 and 9: The Smithsonian Institution has lon
Page 10 and 11: The editors of this publication ext
Page 12 and 13: 2 Sunderland-Groves et al. Figure 1
Page 14 and 15: 4 Sunderland-Groves et al. Rainfall
Page 16 and 17: 6 Sunderland-Groves et al. 7 Conser
Page 18 and 19: 8 Sunderland-Groves et al. Europe,
Page 20 and 21: 10 Comiskey and Dallmeier 2 Challen
Page 22 and 23: 12 Comiskey and Dallmeier 5 Adaptiv
Page 26 and 27: 16 Comiskey and Dallmeier 5.4 Evalu
Page 28 and 29: 18 Takamanda: the Biodiversity of a
Page 30 and 31: 20 Sunderland et al. preliminary la
Page 32 and 33: 22 Sunderland et al. avoided protru
Page 34 and 35: 24 Sunderland et al. Table 2. Summa
Page 36 and 37: 26 Sunderland et al. lowland forest
Page 38 and 39: 28 Sunderland et al. impressive cat
Page 40 and 41: 30 Sunderland et al. Herbaceous flo
Page 42 and 43: 32 Sunderland et al. Table 3. Compa
Page 44 and 45: 34 Sunderland et al. 5.5 Economic P
Page 46 and 47: 36 Sunderland et al. Table 5. Summa
Page 48 and 49: 38 Sunderland et al. monitoring pro
Page 50 and 51: 40 Sunderland et al. Letouzey, R. 1
Page 52 and 53: 42 Sunderland et al. Appendix 1. Pl
Page 54 and 55: 44 Sunderland et al. Agelaea pentag
Page 56 and 57: 46 Sunderland et al. Afzelia pachyl
Page 58 and 59: 48 Sunderland et al. Rhabdophyllum
Page 60 and 61: 50 Sunderland et al. Aningeria robu
Page 62 and 63: 52 Sunderland et al. Nervilia sp. P
Page 64 and 65: 54 Sunderland et al. g—2˜— @y
Page 66 and 67: 56 O’Kah f22 y2@w—˜A g—22@IE
Page 68 and 69: 58 O’Kah Table 3. Species found i
Page 70 and 71: 60 O’Kah Table 6. Indicators of s
Page 72 and 73: 62 O’Kah Larsen, T. B. 1997. Butt
Page 74 and 75:
64 O’Kah Appendix 1 (cont.). Chec
Page 76 and 77:
66 O’Kah Appendix 1 (cont.). Chec
Page 78 and 79:
68 O’Kah Species distribution Tak
Page 80 and 81:
70 O’Kah Species distribution Tak
Page 82 and 83:
72 Takamanda: the Biodiversity of a
Page 84 and 85:
74 h—2@y——A 2 IE2— y2@w—
Page 86 and 87:
76 The sites which have been survey
Page 88 and 89:
78 species from a phylogenetic poin
Page 90 and 91:
80 Appendix 1. Species list and sam
Page 92 and 93:
82 Family / Species Notes Locations
Page 94 and 95:
84 LeBreton et al. 3 Methods A team
Page 96 and 97:
86 LeBreton et al. Bothrolycus ater
Page 98 and 99:
88 LeBreton et al. an important par
Page 100 and 101:
90 LeBreton et al. Perret, J.-L. 19
Page 102 and 103:
92 LeBreton et al. Appendix 1 (cont
Page 104 and 105:
94 LeBreton et al. Appendix 1 (cont
Page 106 and 107:
96 Languy and Motombe f 5 q—2˜
Page 108 and 109:
98 Languy and Motombe Table 3. Thre
Page 110 and 111:
100 Languy and Motombe encroachment
Page 112 and 113:
102 Languy and Motombe Appendix 1.
Page 114 and 115:
104 Languy and Motombe Appendix 1 (
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
112 Sunderland-Groves and Maisels h
Page 124 and 125:
114 Sunderland-Groves and Maisels T
Page 126 and 127:
116 Sunderland-Groves and Maisels T
Page 128 and 129:
118 Sunderland-Groves and Maisels B
Page 130 and 131:
120 Sunderland-Groves and Maisels S
Page 132 and 133:
122 Sunderland-Groves and Maisels A
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
128 Takamanda: the Biodiversity of
Page 140 and 141:
130 Sunderland-Groves et al. In mor
Page 142 and 143:
132 Sunderland-Groves et al. proved
Page 144 and 145:
134 Sunderland-Groves et al. q—2
Page 146 and 147:
136 Sunderland-Groves et al. Table
Page 148 and 149:
138 Sunderland-Groves et al. from m
Page 150 and 151:
140 Sunderland-Groves et al. Sander
Page 152 and 153:
142 Mdaihli et al. Basin and is sep
Page 154 and 155:
144 Table 1. Type and number of fis
Page 156 and 157:
146 Migrating Labeo spp. make up 10
Page 158 and 159:
148 Mdaihli et al. Mochokidae Barbu
Page 160 and 161:
150 Monthly yield (t) 200 160 120 8
Page 162 and 163:
152 Mdaihli et al. of Forests Aroun
Page 164 and 165:
154 Mdaihli et al. Appendix 1 (cont
Page 166 and 167:
156 Sunderland et al. Table 1. Majo
Page 168 and 169:
158 Sunderland et al. resources and
Page 170 and 171:
160 Sunderland et al. No. of indivi
Page 172 and 173:
No. of individuals (n = 315) 200 15
Page 174 and 175:
No. of individuals (n = 1065) 1000
Page 176 and 177:
Gnetum spp. Piper guineensis Site T
Page 178 and 179:
Resource Impacts of seasonality Ava
Page 180 and 181:
Box. Large-scale exploitation of no
Page 182 and 183:
Sunderland, T. C. H. 2001. Cross Ri
Page 184 and 185:
174 Slayback 7 H S IH type of autom
Page 186 and 187:
176 Slayback (ridge or lowland). On
Page 188 and 189:
178 Slayback Table 2: Areas of outp
Page 190 and 191:
180 Takamanda: the Biodiversity of
Page 192:
182 Sunderland-Groves et al. Mone F
show all

Fisheries in the Southern Border Zone of Takamanda - Impact ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?