| Literature DB >> 29385172 |
Mohamed Henriques1,2, José Pedro Granadeiro3, Hamilton Monteiro4, Ana Nuno5, Miguel Lecoq6, Paulo Cardoso7, Aissa Regalla2, Paulo Catry1.
Abstract
Vultures constitute an important functional group in many ecosystems, providing crucial ecosystem services both in natural and humanized environments. These scavengers are facing massive declines worldwide, but in several African countries virtually nothing is known on populations' status and threats, hampering the development of adequate conservation strategies. In Guinea-Bissau, globally important populations of Hooded Necrosyrtes monachus and African white-backed vultures Gyps africanus were recently reported. Using the country as a study area, we aim to characterize human-vulture interactions in West Africa applying a multidisciplinary approach. We assessed the status and distribution of vulture populations using data from 1711 km of roadside transects, examined predictors of their distribution, and produced a nationwide population estimate for the Hooded Vulture, using an innovative method based on the relationship between the size of human population in settlements and vulture numbers. We conducted 47 stakeholder interviews to assess perceived roles played by vultures, and to investigate potential anthropogenic threats. Hooded vultures were strongly associated with high human population densities, whereas no relation was found between African white-backed and Rüppell's vultures and any of the tested predictors, which included cattle density, precipitation and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, among others. We estimate a national population of 43347 Hooded vultures, the largest population reported in the species range. Respondents were generally aware of the services provided by vultures, especially waste and carcass removal, including in urban areas. Hunting for witchcraft and traditional medicine was the most frequently recognised threat, while poisoning was ranked as having the highest impact. We hypothesise that poisoning-related mortality may be affecting African white-backed and Rüppell's vultures' distribution and explain their scarcity in apparently highly suitable habitats. Our results suggest a mutualistic rather than a commensalistic relationship between vultures and humans, with important implications for designing and implementing conservation strategies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29385172 PMCID: PMC5791984 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190594
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map of the study area.
Areas without red lines correspond to Sectors (an administrative division within Guinea-Bissau) that were not sampled for the study of vulture distribution and abundance (i.e. no road surveys were conducted). Orange areas are Sectors where interviews were carried out for the social surveying component of our study. The four major cities of the country are represented by their names in black writing.
Habitat classes created for the analysis of the distribution of Hooded and Gyps spp. vultures over habitats.
| Habitat class | Description |
|---|---|
| Rice fields in wet and saline environments. | |
| Plateau rice fields and gardens. | |
| All kind of natural forests, including palm tree forests. | |
| All type of settlements with permanent or periodic presence of people. | |
| Vast low ground areas flooded periodically, with grassy vegetation. | |
| Areas with both natural and anthropogenic environments. | |
| Mainly cashew trees, with also some mango trees. | |
| Sudan-Guinean savannahs, including wooded savannas. | |
| Permanent or almost permanent humid habitats, including mangrove and rivers (both salty and freshwater rivers). | |
| Non-identified habitat (when habitat was not visible from the road). |
Criteria used for ranking spatial scope, severity and reversibility in the threat-ranking exercise*.
| Value | Spatial scope | Severity | Reversibility (capacity to recover) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Absent | No impact or minimal | Easily reversible |
| 1 | < 25% | Moderately degrades | Reversible if there is enough commitment |
| 3 | 25–75% | Seriously degrades | Reversible but with great difficulty |
| 5 | > 75% | Completely destroys or eliminates | Not reversible |
Spatial scope: Proportion of the vulture's range likely to be negatively impacted by the direct and indirect threats; Severity: Level of impact of the direct and indirect threats; Reversibility: Capacity to recover from the effects of the direct and indirect threats.
*Adapted from IUCN and ICCN (2012).
Fig 2Abundance of Hooded vultures.
Abundance of Hooded vultures Necrosyrtes monachus in sampled Sectors of Guinea-Bissau obtained from road survey transects. Grey areas represent Sectors that were not sampled (yet Hooded vultures are present and widespread in the Bijagós archipelago; authors pers. obs.).
Fig 3Abundance of African white-backed and Rüppell’s vultures.
Abundance of Gyps spp. in sampled Sectors of Guinea-Bissau obtained from road survey transects. Gyps spp. consist mostly of African white-backed vultures. Grey areas represent Sectors that were not sampled (Gyps spp. were never observed in the Bijagós archipelago; authors pers. obs.).
General linear models used to evaluate the effect of predictors on the distribution of Hooded vultures and results of the final models.
AIC values were used to select the best model in a forward stepwise method.
| Model selection | df | AIC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 NDVI driest quarter+NDVI wettest quarter+ Mean ann. temp+ Mean ann. prec+Cattle+ Hum. dens +Prop._burn. area | 7 | 63.38 | ||
| 2 NDVI driest quarter+NDVI wettest quarter+Mean ann. prec+Cattle+Hum. pop. dens+Prop._burn. area | 6 | 61.4 | ||
| 3 NDVI driest quarter+NDVI wettest quarter+Mean ann. prec+Cattle+Hum. pop. dens | 5 | 59.43 | ||
| 4 NDVI driest quarter+NDVI wettest quarter+Mean ann. prec+Hum. pop. dens | 4 | 57.94 | ||
| 5 NDVI wettest quarter+Mean ann. prec+Hum. pop. dens | 3 | 56.84 | ||
| 6 NDVI wettest quarter+Hum. pop. dens | 2 | 55.78 | ||
| 7 Hum. pop. dens | 1 | 54.62 | ||
| Intercept | 1.29693 | 0.62954 | 2.06 | 0.0485 |
| Human population density | 0.02738 | 0.01074 | 2.55 | 0.0163 |
Fig 4Distribution over habitats of most abundant vulture species.
Distribution over habitats of most abundant vulture species during transect surveys in Guinea-Bissau mainland. (NI–Non-identified habitat). Gyps spp. consist mostly of African white-backed vultures.
Perceived positive or negative aspects of vultures according to stakeholders.
Perceived positive or negative aspects of vultures according to stakeholders in Guinea-Bissau, with categories expressed as percentages and with example quotes. Each interview could refer more than one reason (46 and 13 references to positive and negative reasons, respectively).
| Justification | Numb. of references | Quotes from interviews |
|---|---|---|
| Useful (for clean-up, to find lost cattle or people, for witchcraft and traditional medicine) | 20 | “Vultures clean waste from our villages” |
| Harmless | 17 | “Vultures do not attack any living beings, they just go for things that are already dead”; |
| Belief-based (religious and traditional/cultural beliefs) | 8 | “Vultures are like divine deities, they say if you kill one you will catch some sort of disease” |
| Cultural | 1 | “Vultures are the symbol of a matriarchal family line in the Bijagós ethnic group” |
| Spreading disease | 6 | “We do not have nothing against vultures, but we are not sure if they are not carrying diseases and passing them to us when they come near people and in our slaughterhouses” |
| Annoying | 5 | “Vultures steal meat and when you are not looking they poo on the meat” |
| Useless | 1 | “I do not see them as good animals, they are not edible, they are useless” |
| Disgust | 1 | “People say that Muslims are disgusted by vultures because they eat human faeces. It is an animal that feeds in dirty places, it is not clean, and it feeds on microbes” |
*Quotes from interviews translated by MH from Guinea-Bissau creole.
Fig 5Perceived roles played by vultures in Guinea Bissau according to stakeholders.
Perceived roles played by vultures in Guinea Bissau according to stakeholders, showing the frequency (in number of answers; n = 46) of interviews to respondents that regarded vultures as positive, negative, indifferent or irrelevant for each of the referred services.
Fig 6Threat analysis exercise.
Threat analysis exercise, showing the number of mentions of each threat. In each interview, respondents could mention more than one threat, thus total exceeds sample size/number of interviews (n = 23).
Mean values of the threat ranking exercise (n = 23).
| Threats mentioned by stakeholders | Spatial scope | Severity | Score | Reversibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unintentional poisoning | 4 | 3.7 | 7.7 | 2.7 |
| Intentional poisoning | 3.7 | 2.3 | 6.0 | 1.7 |
| Retaliatory/hate killing | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| Persecution for witchcraft/traditional medicine | 3.4 | 0.7 | 4.1 | 2.4 |
| Run overs | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Breeding/roosting tree cut | 4.2 | 2.6 | 6.8 | 3.8 |
| Food shortage | 3.3 | 2.1 | 5.4 | 3.3 |
| Water shortage | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
Higher values of spatial scope represent larger % of area affected); higher values of severity represent higher impact over vulture populations; and higher values of reversibility are interpreted as higher difficulty to reverse negative effects of the threats. Score = Spatial scope + Severity.