Action: Legally protect habitat for mammals
Key messagesRead our guidance on Key messages before continuing
- Seven studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting habitat for mammals. One study each was in Zambia, the USA, Tanzania, Brazil, Nepal and India and one was a systematic review of sites with a wide geographic spread.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES)
- Abundance (7 studies): A systematic review of protected areas across the globe found that 24 of 31 studies reported an increase in mammal populations in protected areas relative to unprotected areas. Three studies (including two site comparison studies), in Zambia, the USA and Nepal, found that populations of red lechwe, black bears and one-horned rhinoceros grew following site protection or were higher than in adjacent non-protected sites. One of three site comparison studies, in Tanzania, Brazil and India, found that populations of more mammal species increased inside protected areas than in adjacent unprotected areas. One study found that populations of only three of 11 species were higher on protected than on unprotected land whilst the third study found that 13 of 16 species were less abundant in a protected area than in a nearby unprotected area.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Legally protecting habitat may reduce its conversion and degradation by humans. This may in turn increase the abundance and diversity of mammals that make use of that habitat.
Assessing the effectiveness of protected areas is particularly difficult. For example, protected and unprotected areas might start off with different quality habitats (protection being granted to the best quality habitat). Protected areas are also more likely to be in remote areas, so less accessible to threats such as harvesting (Joppa & Pfaff 2009). Finally, effectiveness is best monitored over long timescales, but this increases the chance that other factors influence the ecosystem. The most reliable studies would compare protected and unprotected areas over time, and possibly correct for some of the biases.
Joppa L.N. & Pfaff A. (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE, 4, e8273.
Supporting evidence from individual studies
A review of the Kafue National Park in Zambia (Howard & Chabwela 1987) found that following establishment of a national park, the population of red lechwe Kobus leche leche increased. In 1950, when the national park was established, there were approximately 100 red lechwe. By 1985, the population was estimated at 3,400 animals. Methods used by studies to estimate the population in 1950 were not given but, in 1985, a study used aerial surveys to determine abundance.
A site comparison study in 1981–1990 in a mixed forest area in North Carolina, USA (Powell et al. 1996) found that there were more black bears Ursus americanus in a bear sanctuary than on adjacent non-sanctuary land. Bears were detected at a higher rate in the bear sanctuary (0.01–0.04 bear visits/station/day) than outside the sanctuary (0–0.01 bear visits/station/day). In 1981, a total of 136 bait stations (68 in the sanctuary and 68 on adjacent non-sanctuary land) were established. The two parts of the study area were approximately equal in size and, combined, covered >400 km2. In 1981–1990, at each station, two open cans of sardines were nailed to a tree. After five days, bait stations were revisited and any signs of bear visits noted. It was unclear how often the bait stations were baited each year.
A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 1990–2001 in seven savanna areas in Tanzania (Stoner et al. 2007) found that populations of more mammal species increased inside protected national parks than in adjacent unprotected areas, but that population declines were also more frequent in protected than unprotected areas. In all seven comparisons, populations of more mammal species increased in national parks (0–20%) than in unprotected areas (0–5%). However, in six of seven comparisons, populations of more mammal species also declined in national parks (5–62%) than in unprotected areas (0–21%). In one of seven comparisons, the opposite was found (national parks: 0%, unprotected areas: 22%). Between May 1990 and May 2001, large mammals in seven zones, each spanning a national park and surrounding area, were surveyed from aeroplanes. Planes followed transects and two observers recorded numbers of animals seen between parallel rods attached to the aircraft. Population densities were calculated and assigned to cells covering the area surveyed. Population estimates over 10 years in each cell were used to determine changes in both protected and unprotected areas.
A site comparison study in 2005–2007 in two sites mostly composed of secondary forest in Pará, Brazil (Negrões et al. 2011) found that 13 of 16 species were less abundant in a protected area than in a nearby unprotected area. Results were not tested for statistical significance. Populations of 13 of 16 species were lower in the protected area (0–4.5 photos/100 camera-trap nights) than in a nearby unprotected area (0.1–5.0 photos/100 camera-trap nights). Three of the 16 species were more abundant in the protected area (0.2–4.5 photos/100 camera-trap nights) than in the unprotected area (0.2–4.1 photos/100 camera-trap nights). Vegetation in the protected area was largely secondary rainforest and, in the unprotected area, 65% was secondary forest and 35% was pasture. Five camera-trap surveys were carried out between July 2005 and November 2007 at 10–22 locations in a protected area and 10–22 locations in a nearby unprotected area. Cameras were placed 50–70 cm above ground level at each location. Each camera took one photograph every 5 minutes. Relative abundance of species was estimated by dividing the number of photos of a species by the number of trap-nights.
A systematic review in 2013 of the effectiveness of protected areas across the globe, but especially in Latin America (Geldmann et al. 2013) found that 24 of 31 studies reported an increase in mammal populations in protected areas relative to unprotected areas. Seven of 31 studies reported a decline or no change in mammal populations in protected areas relative to unprotected areas. Twelve studies used a before-and-after methodology and 19 studies were site comparisons.
A before-and-after study in 1950–2011 in an area dominated by forest and grassland in western Nepal (Thapa et al. 2013) found that greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis numbers more than tripled over 38 years after the establishment of a national park. Rhinoceros numbers declined >80% (from 800 in 1950 to 147 in 1972) during the 23 years before the establishment of the national park. However, during the 38 after the establishment of the national park, numbers increase by >70% (from 147 in 1972 to 534 in 2011). The study area became the Chitwan National Park in 1973. Since 1975, rhinoceroses were protected by the Nepal Army and, in 2007, a nationwide anti-poaching programme was launched. In 1986–2003, eighty-three rhinoceroses were translocated from Chitwan National Park to other reserves. Monitoring details are not provided.
A site comparison study in 2011–2013 in two agricultural and forest areas in north-eastern India (Velho et al. 2016) found that the number of species and abundance of seven of 11 large mammal species did not differ between a protected wildlife sanctuary area and community managed land. The number of species was similar in the protected (17 species) and the community managed areas (16 species). Seven of 11 large mammal species had similar abundances in the protected area and on community managed land (data reported as model results). Three species were more abundant in the protected area and one was more abundant on the community managed land. In October–November 2011 and August–September 2012, eleven sites were established in the wildlife sanctuary and 14 sites in the community managed land. At each site, a 500 × 5-m U-shaped transect, divided into 20-m segments, was surveyed by two observers for signs of mammal presence. In April–June 2013, twenty-two infrared cameras were deployed in the wildlife sanctuary and 18 were deployed in the community managed areas. Cameras were attached to trees, 25 cm above ground. They operated 24 hours/day and were baited with rotting bananas and smoked dried fish.
- Howard G.W. & Chabwela H.N. (1987) The red lechwe of Busanga Plain, Zambia — a conservation success. Oryx, 21, 233-235
- Powell R.A., Zimmerman J.W., Seaman D.E. & Gilliam J.F. (1996) Demographic analyses of a hunted black bear population with access to a refuge. Conservation Biology, 10, 224-234
- Stoner C., Caro T., Mduma S., Mlingwa C., Sabuni G. & Borner M. (2007) Assessment of effectiveness of protection strategies in Tanzania based on a decade of survey data for large herbivores. Conservation Biology, 21, 635-646
- Negrões N., Revilla E., Fonseca C., Soares A.M.V.M., Jácomo A.T.A. & Silveira L. (2011) Private forest reserves can aid in preserving the community of medium and large-sized vertebrates in the Amazon arc of deforestation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 505-518
- Geldmann J., Barnes M., Coad L., Craigie I.D., Hockings M. & Burgess N.D. (2013) Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation, 161, 230-238
- Thapa K., Nepal S., Thapa G., Bhatta S.R. & Wikramanayake E. (2013) Past, present and future conservation of the greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis in Nepal. Oryx, 47, 345-351
- Velho N., Srinivasan U., Singh P. & Laurance W.F. (2016) Large mammal use of protected and community-managed lands in a biodiversity hotspot. Animal Conservation, 19, 199-208