Monitoring and management of the endangered Cape mountain zebra Equus zebra zebra in the Western Cape, South Africa

Abstract

De Hoop Nature Reserve and a neighbouring conservancy contain the most genetically diverse subpopulation of the Endangered (IUCN) Cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra Linnaeus 1758). Although vital for the long‐term stability of the meta‐population, the population had received limited monitoring post‐1999. We summarize data obtained during a population monitoring programme established in 2005. Ninety‐nine individuals were identified indicating a decline in annual population growth from 6.6% (1995–1999) to 4.5% (1999–2005). The population was male biased and the deficit of females is likely to have prevented additional breeding herd formation resulting in excess nonbreeding males. These animals are currently of limited reproductive value to the meta‐population and may be contributing to the decline in reproductive potential at De Hoop by competing for limited resources. One solution may be to translocate ‘excess’ males to reinforce existing small populations or establish new populations with females from elsewhere provided that a minimum of 78 animals is maintained at De Hoop to limit genetic loss. Population monitoring and effective management strategies for the De Hoop population and the meta‐population are vital to ensure the long‐term survival of Cape mountain zebra and for the success of other species recovery programmes.

Resolving management conflicts: could agricultural land provide the answer for an endangered species in a habitat classified as a World Heritage Site?

“…1). The Cape mountain zebra population, which was founded in the 1970s, numbered 99 by 2006 (Smith et al 2008). It inhabits the western section of DHNR (30% of the total area) as well as a neighbouring conservancy, the Denel Corporation Overberg Toets Baan (OTB; 28 000 ha).…”

“…The population growth rate of zebras in DHNR has slowed over the last decade (Smith et al 2008) and resource limitation is likely to be an important factor. In contrast to the population in MZNP, which make seasonal movements from open grassy plateaus to wooded hill slopes (Penzhorn 1982a;Grobler 1983), zebras in DHNR select the small areas of grassland throughout the year.…”

“…As a consequence, these animals are critically important for the long-term survival of the subspecies. A recent status update for the population indicates that although the population increased between 1999 and 2005, population growth rate had declined (Smith et al 2008). For ungulate species not subject to predation, such as Cape mountain zebra, food resources are likely to be a key limiting factor (Sinclair 1974;Sinclair et al 1985).…”

Adaptive Governance of Cape Mountain Zebra, Can It Work?

“…identifying spatially explicit priorities and actions for the conservation of Cape mountain zebra) (Penzhorn and Novellie 1991;Winkler and Owen-Smith 1995;Margules and Pressey 2000;Kerley et al 2003;Watson et al 2005;Smith et al 2007;Hurzuk 2009;Ryers et al 2010;Kraaij and Novellie 2010;Watson et al 2011;Smith et al 2011;Hrabar and Kerley 2013;Birss and Schutte-Vlok 2015 pers. comm.…”

“…Habitat suitability studies were conducted for Bontebok NP (Kraaij and Novellie 2010;Watson et al 2011;Strauss 2015), De Hoop NR (Smith et al 2007;Hurzuk 2009;Smith et al 2011), Gamkaberg NR (Watson et al 2005), Mountain Zebra NP (Winkler and Owen-Smith 1995) and Kammanassie NR . All studies showed that Cape mountain zebra prefer habitat with a high grassy component, and that only small portions of these reserves have suitable habitat for the species (Hurzuk 2009;Strauss 2015).…”