| Literature DB >> 27338596 |
Neil E Anderson1, Paul R Bessell2, Joseph Mubanga2,3, Robert Thomas4, Mark C Eisler5, Eric M Fèvre6,7, Susan C Welburn8.
Abstract
Classifying, describing and understanding the natural environment is an important element of studies of human, animal and ecosystem health, and baseline ecological data are commonly lacking in remote environments of the world. Human African trypanosomiasis is an important constraint on human well-being in sub-Saharan Africa, and spillover transmission occurs from the reservoir community of wild mammals. Here we use robust and repeatable methodology to generate baseline datasets on vegetation and mammal density to investigate the ecology of warthogs (Phacochoerus africanus) in the remote Luambe National Park in Zambia, in order to further our understanding of their interactions with tsetse (Glossina spp.) vectors of trypanosomiasis. Fuzzy set theory is used to produce an accurate landcover classification, and distance sampling techniques are applied to obtain species and habitat level density estimates for the most abundant wild mammals. The density of warthog burrows is also estimated and their spatial distribution mapped. The datasets generated provide an accurate baseline to further ecological and epidemiological understanding of disease systems such as trypanosomiasis. This study provides a reliable framework for ecological monitoring of wild mammal densities and vegetation composition in remote, relatively inaccessible environments.Entities:
Keywords: Luangwa Valley; Phacochoerus africanus; Zambia; distance sampling; fuzzy classification; trypanosome; warthog; wild mammal density
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27338596 PMCID: PMC5063903 DOI: 10.1007/s10393-016-1131-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecohealth ISSN: 1612-9202 Impact factor: 3.184
Figure 1Map of the Luangwa Valley, with inset map showing the location of ground transects within Luambe National Park.
Vegetation Classes by Physiognomic Unit.
| Physiognomic vegetation unit | Vegetation class | Characteristic tree/shrub species | Acronym | Abbreviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woodland | Acacia woodland |
| None | AW |
|
|
|
| CTW | |
| Mopane woodland |
| None | MW | |
| Riverine woodland and thicket |
| Riverine woodland | RWT | |
| Scrub woodland | Hill scrub miombo woodland |
| Scrub miombo woodland | HSMW |
| Mopane scrub woodland |
| Mopane scrub | MSW | |
| Thicket | Thicket |
| None | TH |
| Grassland | Grassland | Occasional | None | G |
| Semi-permanent water/aquatic-association grassland |
| Aquatic grassland | SPW/AAG |
Error Matrix for the Classification.
| Class name | Reference data | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSW | TH | RWT | CTW | G | SPW/AAG | AW | W | MW | User’s accuracy | 95% CI | |
| Classified data | |||||||||||
| MSW |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 41–78 |
| TH | 0 |
| 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 56 | 38–74 |
| RWT | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 57–96 |
| CTW | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 47 | 32–62 |
| G | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 93 | 82–98 |
| SPW/AAG | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 55–100 |
| AW | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 100 | 59–100 |
| W | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 100 | 81–100 |
| MW | 7 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 64 | 48–78 |
| Producer’s accuracy | 63 | 69 | 44 | 88 | 81 | 50 | 44 | 95 | 88 | ||
| 95% CI | 42–81 | 48–86 | 26–62 | 69–97 | 69–90 | 26–74 | 20–70 | 74–100 | 71–96 | ||
| Conditional kappa | 0.56 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.35 | 0.91 | 0.9 | 1 | 1 | 0.56 | ||
Values in bold are correctly classified pixels. The sum of these values divided by the total number of samples in the matrix provides the overall accuracy
Overall accuracy = 71.2% (95% CI 65.3–76.7%).
Overall kappa statistic (κ) = 0.67.
Estimator of kappa (KS) for stratified random sampling (Stehman 1997) = 0.74.
Figure 2Land cover classification of Luambe National Park.
Animals Observed During the Transect Survey and Density Estimates for the More Abundant Species.
| Common name | Scientific name | Observations | Mean cluster size | Truncation distance (m)/intervals | Observations (post-truncation) | Detection function | AIC | ESW (m) | Estimated cluster size (95% CI) | Density (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Common warthog |
| 46 | 2.3 | 230/6 | 38 | Stratum | 98.04 | 81 | 2.41 (1.88–2.85) | 3.14 (1.93–5.98) |
| Impala |
| 150 | 5.3 | 200/7 | 123 | Stratum | 436.27 | 108 | 4.26 (3.32–5.57) | 13.45 (8.75–23.47) |
| Puku |
| 216 | 5.9 | 500/9 | 206 | Stratum | 753.35 | 174 | 6.33 (4.76–8.13) | 20.85 (12.38–35.78) |
| Baboon |
| 34 | 13.6 | 380/10 | 33 | Global | 1735.34 | 106 | 17.69 (10.28–28.02) | 15.37 (7.48–26.16) |
| Bushbuck |
| 12 | 1.3 | 380/10 | 12 | Global | 1735.34 | 106 | 1.21 (1.00–1.68) | 0.38 (0.18–0.68) |
| Elephant |
| 20 | 3.6 | 380/10 | 16 | Global | 1735.34 | 106 | 5.50 (2.67–9.28) | 2.32 (0.88–4.68) |
| Sharpe’s grysbok |
| 11 | 1.1 | 380/10 | 11 | Global | 1735.34 | 106 | 1.07 (1.00–1.28) | 0.31 (0.15–0.55) |
| Banded mongoose |
| 5 | 3.2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Burchell’s zebra |
| 12 | 7.8 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Common waterbuck |
| 6 | 2.2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Cookson’s wildebeest |
| 4 | 8.8 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Greater kudu |
| 3 | 4.3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Serval |
| 1 | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Slender mongoose |
| 2 | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Southern reedbuck |
| 7 | 2.9 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Spotted hyaena |
| 1 | 2.0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Vervet monkey |
| 5 | 3.4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Total | – | 784 | 3.9 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Models with a half-normal key function and cosine series expansion provided the best fit for all species. Density is number per square kilometre.
Summary of the Estimated Densities for Large Mammalsa by Vegetation Class in the Study Area.
| Habitat | Truncation distance (m)/intervals | Observations (post-truncation) | Detection function | AIC | ESW (m) | Estimated cluster size (95% CI) | Density (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aquatic grassland | 430/9 | 73 | Stratum | 284.96 | 201.71 | 4.19 (2.66–5.84) | 7.14 (4.09–12.41) |
|
| 165/8 | 43 | Global | 230.9 | 62.48 | 2.60 (2.00–3.80) | 6.45 (3.49–10.01) |
| Grassland | 400/15 | 178 | Stratum | 947.36 | 190.79 | 7.23 (4.93–10.25) | 41.04 (23.12–68.20) |
| Mopane scrub | 165/8 | 21 | Global | 230.9 | 62.48 | 3.18 (1.41–6.60) | 3.84 (1.22–8.42) |
| Mopane woodland | 210/9 | 93 | Stratum | 344.27 | 86.04 | 5.64 (3.86–7.48) | 25.62 (11.58–58.17) |
| Riverine woodland | 380/10 | 38 | Global | 248.42 | 85.341 | 8.12 (4.17–15.36) | 12.13 (5.51–25.57) |
| Thicket | 380/10 | 39 | Global | 248.42 | 85.341 | 3.00 (1.77–4.43) | 5.33 (2.96–8.82) |
| Total | 380/10 | 489 | Global | 1864.63 | 109.8 | 5.09 (4.10–6.24) | 17.32 (12.69–24.59) |
Models with a half-normal key function and cosine series expansion term provided the best fit to the data when stratified by vegetation type and hazard rate key function with simple polynomial expansion term when not stratified.
aBaboon, Bushbuck, Elephant, Sharpe’s Grysbok, Impala, Greater Kudu, Puku, Southern Reedbuck, Serval, Spotted Hyaena, Vervet Monkey, Warthog, Common Waterbuck, Cookson’s Wildebeest and Burchell’s Zebra
Density Estimates for Warthog Burrows in the Study Area.
| Status | Truncation distance (m)/intervals | Observations (post-truncation) | Detection function | AIC | ESW (m) | Density (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All burrows | 29/7 | 83 | Stratum | 242 | 10.6 | 21.80 (15.75–37.89) |
| Used burrows | 29/8 | 40 | Stratum | 133.26 | 11.36 | 9.81 (5.92–14.71) |
A model using a half-normal key with a cosine expansion term provided the best fit for both models.
Figure 3Geographical distribution of warthog burrows in the study area.