Recovery of Ungulate Populations in Post-Civil War Akagera National Park, Rwanda

Apio, Ann; Plath, Martin; Wronski, Torsten

doi:10.2982/028.104.0110

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given Rwanda's role as a water supplier to downstream nations in the Congo and Nile Basins (many of which are water stressed), the protection of hydrologic ES by Rwanda's ecosystems is important for neighbouring nations as well. National park boundaries in Rwanda have changed over time, with Gishwati‐Mukura NP created in 2015 but large parts of Akagera NP degazetted to accommodate refugees returning to Rwanda after the conflict of the 1990s (Apio, Plath, & Wronski, ). This shows how population pressures interact with conservation, which is critical to the maintenance of ES in Rwanda.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards ecosystem accounts for Rwanda: Tracking 25 years of change in flows and potential supply of ecosystem services

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rwanda, a small but rapidly developing central African nation, has undertaken development of natural capital accounts to better inform its economic development through the World Bank's Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) Partnership. In this paper, we develop ecosystem service (ES) models to quantify ecosystem condition and physical supply components of ecosystem accounts in Rwanda from 1990 to 2015. We applied the InVEST carbon storage, sediment delivery ratio, nutrient delivery ratio, and annual and seasonal water yield models to map changes in potential ES supply nationwide. We also quantified flows of sediment, water and nutrients to 96 hydroelectric dam, irrigation dam and water treatment plant sites. Over a 25‐year period, we found declines in all ES, which were most strongly driven by conversion of forests to cropland. Declines were most pronounced from 1990 to 2000 and 2010 to 2015; ES were relatively stable from 2000 to 2010 (with the exception of nutrient exports to water bodies, which jumped most sharply from 2000 to 2010). From 2010 to 2015, over 42% of Rwanda's water‐use sites (representing 9% of the nation's hydroelectric generation capacity and 59% of its water treatment capacity) had upstream increases in sediment export and quick flow greater than the national average. Half of Rwanda's water treatment plants had upstream phosphorus exports greater than the national average. Our results quantify nation‐wide ES trends, their implications for key water‐dependent industries, and the importance of protected areas in safeguarding ES flows and potential supply in Rwanda. They also provide data that can be integrated with existing land, water and economic accounts for Rwanda, as well as a baseline to inform development strategies that better link economic and environmental goals. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards ecosystem accounts for Rwanda: Tracking 25 years of change in flows and potential supply of ecosystem services

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have also consulted the first mammal catalogue for Rwanda [ 41 ] and the first scientific exploration reports on the mammalian community in PA. [ 42 – 45 ]. We have also consulted the most recent report with a clear focus on large mammalian species [ 17 , 46 – 49 ]. Beyond Mammals, other taxonomic groups were covered by ‘The bird & Mammal lists of Nyungwe National Park’ [ 50 ], The biodiversity of Buhanga relict forest [ 51 ], Inventory and mapping of threatened remnant terrestrial ecosystems outside PA through Rwanda [ 52 ], Biodiversity inventory for key wetlands in Rwanda [ 53 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping of biodiversity hubs and key ecosystem services as a tool for shaping optimal areas for conservation

Gatwaza

Wang

2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most National Parks (NP) and nature reserves in Rwanda have been established opportunistically in the early 1900s, without clear consideration of ensuring the protection to all threatened different taxonomical or functional groups, such as vegetation, invertebrates, fish, and birds. With the increasing conservation objectives, raised expectations into Protected Areas (PA), and within a more challenging environmental context, it is important to identify biodiversity hubs and key areas for Ecosystem Services (ES) to maximize the efficiency of conservation efforts by assisting priority areas under threats. To date, no comprehensive analysis, to the best of our knowledge has been done to assess both biodiversity and ES in Rwanda. This is a notable gap, considering that global-scale research suggests that the spatial overlap between biodiversity targets and ES is low. This study reports a nationwide assessment, mapping the richness of threatened species and three key ES Carbon Storage, Water Quantity, and Water Quality. Our analysis has shown that PAs are neither perfectly delineated to protect biodiversity nor key ES. The state of PAs offers a taxonomic protection bias in favor of mammals and birds but leaves many endangered species in other taxonomic groups in collapsing and unprotected small ecosystems scattered around the country. Rwanda’s PAs cover important carbon stock but can do better at securing higher water balance regions and clean water sources. We propose an improvement of the NP system in Rwanda to help guide the economic development along a path of green growth and ensures the well-being of both people and nature. Locating biodiversity hubs and key ES can help to connect conservationists, local people, and governments in order to better guide conservation actions.

show abstract

“…The de-gazettement of roughly two-thirds of the protected land comprising the entire Mutara hunting area (300 km 2 ) and part of Akagera National Park for resettlements and farming activities after the year 1997 greatly reduced the protected areas [ 27 , 28 ]. This reduced the Akagera NP to about 1120 km 2 out of the 2500 km 2 initially gazetted [ 28 , 29 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An update on the distribution of Glossina (tsetse flies) at the wildlife-human-livestock interface of Akagera National Park, Rwanda

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Glossina (tsetse flies) biologically transmit trypanosomes that infect both humans and animals. Knowledge of their distribution patterns is a key element to better understand the transmission dynamics of trypanosomosis. Tsetse distribution in Rwanda has not been well enough documented, and little is known on their current distribution. This study determined the current spatial distribution, abundance, diversity, and seasonal variations of tsetse flies in and around the Akagera National Park. Methods A longitudinal stratified sampling following the seasons was used. Biconical traps were deployed in 55 sites for 6 consecutive days of each study month from May 2018 to June 2019 and emptied every 48 h. Flies were identified using FAO keys, and the number of flies per trap day (FTD) was used to determine the apparent density. Pearson chi-square (χ2) and parametrical tests (t-test and ANOVA) were used to determine the variations between the variables. The significance (p < 0.05) at 95% confidence interval was considered. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between tsetse occurrence and the associated predictors. Results A total of 39,516 tsetse flies were collected, of which 73.4 and 26.6% were from inside Akagera NP and the interface area, respectively. Female flies accounted for 61.3 while 38.7% were males. Two species were identified, i.e. G. pallidipes [n = 29,121, 7.4 flies/trap/day (FTD)] and G. morsitans centralis (n = 10,395; 2.6 FTD). The statistical difference in numbers was significant between the two species (p = 0.000). The flies were more abundant during the wet season (15.8 FTD) than the dry season (4.2 FTD). Large numbers of flies were trapped around the swamp areas (69.1 FTD) inside the park and in Nyagatare District (11.2 FTD) at the interface. Glossina morsitans was 0.218 times less likely to occur outside the park. The chance of co-existing between the two species reduced outside the protected area (0.021 times). Conclusions The occurrence of Glossina seems to be limited to the protected Akagera NP and a narrow band of its surrounding areas. This finding will be crucial to design appropriate control strategies. Glossina pallidipes was found in higher numbers and therefore is conceivably the most important vector of trypanosomosis. Regional coordinated control and regular monitoring of Glossina distribution are recommended. Graphic Abstract

show abstract

Recovery of Ungulate Populations in Post-Civil War Akagera National Park, Rwanda

Cited by 11 publications

References 10 publications

Towards ecosystem accounts for Rwanda: Tracking 25 years of change in flows and potential supply of ecosystem services

Towards ecosystem accounts for Rwanda: Tracking 25 years of change in flows and potential supply of ecosystem services

Mapping of biodiversity hubs and key ecosystem services as a tool for shaping optimal areas for conservation

An update on the distribution of Glossina (tsetse flies) at the wildlife-human-livestock interface of Akagera National Park, Rwanda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About