GRNB - Cebem

BIODIVERSITY BASELINE
OF THE QUIRIMBAS NATIONAL PARK
Mozambique
Final Report
January 2010
GRNB
Team of consultants
Almeida Sitoe
Valério Macandza
Paulo Jorge
Albano Gabriel
Mário Carvalho
Faura Amade
(Team Leader)
(Terrestrial Fauna)
(Geography and GIS)
(Terrestrial Flora)
(Marine Fauna)
(Marine Flora)
GRNB
Grupo de Gestão de Recursos Naturais e Biodiversidade
Faculdade de Agronomia e Engenharia Florestal
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane
C.P. 257, Maputo, Moçambique
Acronyms
AFD
CBD
CPUE
CRES
DCB
DEF
DNAC
FAO
GEF
IDPPE
IIP
IUCN
MAP
MCIZ
MOMS
QNP
PPANNCD
SOCMON
UEM
WWF
ZTSM
French Development Agency
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
Capture Per Unity Effort
Swahelian Regional Center of Endemism
Department of Biological Sciences (UEM)
Department of Forestry (UEM)
National Directorate for Conservation Áreas
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
Global Environment Fund
Instituto de Desenvolvimento de Pesca de Pequena Escala
Instituto de Investigação Pesqueira
World Conservation Union
Monitoria Acústica Passiva
Inhambane-Zanzibar Coastal Mosaic
Management-oriented monitoring system
Quirimbas Nacional Park
Projecto de Pesca Artesanal a Norte de Nampula e Cabo Delgado
Socioeconomic monitoring
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane
Fundo Mundial para a Natureza
Sahelian-Maputaland Transition Zone
iii
Table of contents
Table of contents.......................................................................................................................iv
List of Tables.............................................................................................................................vi
List of Figures..........................................................................................................................vii
Executive summary.................................................................................................................viii
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................1
2. Geography..............................................................................................................................3
2.1 Location............................................................................................................................3
2.2 Limits...............................................................................................................................3
2.3 Climate.............................................................................................................................6
2.4 Landscape and Hydrography ...........................................................................................8
2.5 Soils..................................................................................................................................9
2.6 Bathymetry.....................................................................................................................10
2.7 Land use.........................................................................................................................11
2.8 Population.......................................................................................................................11
3. Marine Componente.............................................................................................................14
3.1 Marine Vegetation..........................................................................................................14
3.1.1 Mangrove................................................................................................................14
3.1.2 Seagrasses ...............................................................................................................16
3.1.3 Seaweeds.................................................................................................................18
3.1.4 Conservation status and threats of marine vegetation.............................................19
3.2 Marine Fauna..................................................................................................................21
3.2.1 Marine invertebrates of the intertidal zone..............................................................22
3.2.2 Coral Reefs .............................................................................................................22
3.2.3 Reef Fish and Commercial Fish .............................................................................26
3.2.4 Sea Turtles, dugong, whale and shark ....................................................................35
3.2.5 Monitoring Programs .............................................................................................37
3.2.6 Conservation status and threats for marine life ......................................................38
3.2.7 Limitations of knowledge about marine fauna .......................................................39
4. Terrestrial Component..........................................................................................................40
4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation and Flora ...................................................................................40
4.1.1 Phytogeography.......................................................................................................40
4.1.2 Vegetation...............................................................................................................40
4.1.3 Flora........................................................................................................................44
4.1.4 Threats to conservation of terrestrial flora..............................................................46
4.1.5 Conservation Aspects..............................................................................................48
4.2 Terrestrial Fauna............................................................................................................50
4.2.1 Mammals.................................................................................................................51
4.2.2 Birds........................................................................................................................60
4.2.3 Reptiles ...................................................................................................................62
4.2.4 Amphibians.............................................................................................................62
4.2.5 Insects......................................................................................................................63
4.2.6 Terrestrial fauna management issues......................................................................66
5. Bibliography.........................................................................................................................67
iv
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Distribution of population by Administrative Post ...................................................12
Table 2. Occurrence of mangrove species per site in QNP O = Occurs; N = Does Not occur 15
Table 3. Occurrence of seagrasses species in each site of QNP . O = occurs, -- = does not
occur.........................................................................................................................................18
Table 4. Threats and conservation measures for marine vegetation of the QNP.....................19
Table 5. Number of common taxa recorded by Whittington et al. (1997,1998);.....................22
Table 6. Number of genus and species of reef and commercial fishes recorded at northern
island group (Macaloe, Mogundula,Rolas e Matemo), according to Whittington et al
(1997,1998)..............................................................................................................................26
Table 7. Number of genus and species of reef and commercial fishes recorded at central
island group (Ibo, Quirimba, Sencar and Quilalea), according to Whittington et al
(1997,1998)..............................................................................................................................26
Table 8. Number of genus and species of reef and commercial fishes recorded at southern
islands group (Mefunvo, Quisiva and Quipaco), according to Whittington et al (1997, 1998).
..................................................................................................................................................27
Table 9. Data from Artisanal Fisheries Census of Cabo Delgado Province............................30
Table 10. Total Catch (Tons) estimated in 3 distrits of Quirimbas National Park, at 2006 and
2007 .........................................................................................................................................32
Table 11. Catch, effort and CPUE of the artisanal fisheries studies reported by IIP, Ministry
of Fisheries (MP) and Loureiro (L)..........................................................................................33
Table 12. Species of dolphins and whales recorded at Quirimbas National Prak and all around
..................................................................................................................................................36
Table 13. The area covered by the different types of vegetation in the QNP..........................41
Table 14. Number of plant species per families identified in the QNP (Bandeira et al., 2008).
..................................................................................................................................................44
Table 15. Number and endemism among plant species per vegetation type in the QNP........45
Table 16. Summary of the number of species and conservation status of terrestrial fauna of
the QNP....................................................................................................................................50
Table 17. Estimates of population size and index of abundance of terrestrial mammals of the
QNP (Araman and Mahommed, 2006)....................................................................................52
Table 18. Summary of the existing knowledge and gaps of knowledge about terrestrial fauna
..................................................................................................................................................64
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Geographic location of the QNP.................................................................................4
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of rainfall in QNP .......................................................................7
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of annual average temperature in QNP.......................................8
Figure 4. Shaded Relief and hydrography of the QNP..............................................................9
Figure 5. Soil map of the QNP.................................................................................................10
Figure 6. Bathymetry of the coast of QNP...............................................................................10
Figure 7. Spatial distribution of population in QNP................................................................12
Figure 8. Height of trees by species in different islands of the QNP. Am = Avicennia marina,
Bg = Bruguiera gimnorrhyza Ct = Ceriops tagal, Rm = Rhizophora mucronata, Sa =
Sonneratia alba.. ......................................................................................................................15
Figure 9. Structural Attributes of Species in QN.....................................................................16
Figure 10. Number of species of seagrasses in the site of QNP .............................................17
Figure 11. Number of seaweeds by the Local QNP. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae)
Rhodophyta (red algae), Clorophyta (green algae) and Phaephyta (brown algae)..................19
Figure 12. Map of Reef Corals and other coastal and marine habitats within Quirimbas
National Park, according to Anadarko (2007).........................................................................24
Figure 13. The Inhambane Zanzibar Coastal Mosaic setting according to White (1983),
showing the Swahelian Regional Centre of Endemism – SRCE (XIIIa) (source: Burguess &
Clark 2000). ...........................................................................................................................40
Figure 14. The vegetation types in the Quirimbas National Park (Bandeira et al., 2008).......41
Figure 15. The diversity of habitus among terrestrial plants of the QNP................................44
Figure 16. Incidencies of bush fires in the QNP for the years 2006 and 2009 based on the
MODIS satellite data. ..............................................................................................................48
Figure 17. Location of the total protection blocks in relation to the spatial distribution of
density of human settlements in the QNP (Araman, 2007)......................................................57
Figure 18. Location of areas with high incidence of human-wildlife conflicts in the QNP
(source: Ntumi 2005)...............................................................................................................59
Figure 19. Main elephant movement routes (yellow lines and arrows) used to get in and out
of the QNP, overlaid on the vegetation types and main Rivers (source: Ntumi, 2005)...........60
vi
Executive summary
The present study was requested by WWF-Mozambique with the aim to evaluate the state
of the knowledge of the biodiversity of the Quirimbas National Park (QNP). The study
answers some of the challenges that the QNP faces in the conservation of marine and
terrestrial biodiversity.
The present study contributes in the systematization of the existing information, identifies
gaps in the knowledge of the state of biodiversity and proposes conservation, research and
monitoring measures. Therefore, based on the objectives of current and future
management of the park and the priorities of development, the general objective of this
study (according to the established terms of reference) is to prepare a concise and
integrated research and monitoring strategy of the QNP that can inform effectively the park
management on decision-making.
The general management plan of the QNP translates the commitment of the Government of
Mozambique in the conservation of biodiversity, rural development, and in the promotion
of sustainable tourism in a plan of concrete action for conservation, use and management of
one of its largest natural resources, the Quirimbas Archipelago.
The activities of the Department of Research of the QNP are oriented to the generation of
management information. Indeed, since its creation, the QNP has been carrying out
activities towards the resolution of the problems that originated the creation of the park, in
particular the reduction of human-wildlife conflicts, the establishment of fishing sanctuaries,
monitoring of the utilization of the biological resources of the QNP, among others.
The specific objectives of this study include: (i) to conduct a critical review of the state of
scientific knowledge in the QNP area, including an analysis of the scope and quality of scientific studies done to date; (ii) to review critically the ongoing monitoring and research
activities of the park and their effectiveness and utilization by the park administration in
making informed management decisions: these ongoing activities include MOMS’s, SOCMON, annual mammal surveys, Measures research activities and others; (iii) to identify the
main gaps in the present state of scientific knowledge in relation to the current and possibly
future management objectives of the park; (iv) to integrate the various studies into an overall report of the state of biodiversity in the QNP; (v) to suggest management and zoning interventions based on the results of the review and in close relation to the management priorities and objectives for the park;
(vi) to suggest a prioritized, integrated and concise program for research and monitoring for
the next five years that informs management objectives and priorities (this can include
already ongoing research and monitoring activities) including financial implications and implementation modalities; (vii) to analyze and make recommendations on how the various
research initiatives in the QNP landscape are planned, carried out and coordinated.
vi
The methodology for the elaboration of the study consisted of the consultation of literature,
including studies carried out by the QNP, IIP, IDPP, statistical reports of the Ministry of
Fisheries, studies made by the oil-producing companies that are carrying out prospection in
the region, studies driven by diverse foreign and national researchers and the existing
monitoring databases prepared by the QNP. Additionally, a one-day seminar was organized
to evaluate the preliminary report and help to prepare the research program, which is part
of this study.
The results of the study are presented in two essential parts. The first part is the report of
the current state of biodiversity of the QNP, containing: (i) description of the current state
of the biodiversity of the QNP (ii) analysis and identification of gaps in scientific knowledge
about the biodiversity of the QNP, (iii) the current threats to biodiversity conservation and
(iv) management options. The second part is the biodiversity research and monitoring plan
of the QNP.
From the analysis of the available literature we found that several studies exist in the
marine and terrestrial components. About the current state of biodiversity the following
results were found:
(i) Marine vegetation:
Six species of mangrove trees were identified in the QNP, of which Rhizophora mucronata
was the most common species found in all the islands and Xilocarpus granatum the rarest.
Sonneratia alba, a species that occurs only in the Central and Northern region of
Mozambique was also found. The islands of Ibo (5) and Quirimba (5) presented higher
diversity of species. The mangrove in the QNP is threatened by local people cutting wood
for several reasons such as for building materials, wood fuel, fencing, etc. The islands with
the highest impact of mangrove wood cutting are Ibo, Matemo, Mefunvo, Quipaco and
Mogundula. The species preferred by the wood cutters in Mogundula is Ceriops tagal and in
Quipaco is Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, while in the remaining islands there is no specific
preference.
Ten seagrass species were identified in the QNP. The most common species found are
Thalassia hemprichii and Thalassodendron ciliatum. The islands of Quirimba (9), Matemo
(7) and Ibo (7) presented the highest diversity of species. Enhalus acaroids, found in the
QNP is rare in the South and Central Mozambique. The threats for the seagrass beds are
fishing, presence of boats, nets and fishing traps, and collection of invertebrates.
About 259 seaweed species were identified in the QNP. The groups with more species were
Rhodophyta (red seaweed) and Chlorophyta (green seaweed). The islands with highest
diversity of seaweed were Quirimba (151 species) and Ibo (126 species). The threats for the
seaweed are collection of invertebrates, fishing, and the use of fishing nets and traps. Local
residents do not explore seaweed for consumption.
(ii) Terrestrial flora:
ix
The vegetation of the QNP is barely known. A recent study of the vegetation carried out in
the QNP (commissioned by the park) used the Flora Zambesiaca classification system based
on floristic, having identified six categories of terrestrial vegetation namely (in order of
occupied surface): Miombo woodland, Acacia-grasslands, mixed forest, mangrove, miombovelloziaceae and coastal thicket respectively.
In the QNP a total of 540 species of plants were identified among herbaceous (38%), trees
(37%), bushes (18%), lianas (4%), succulents (2%) and palms. The botanic families of
Fabaceae, Poaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Asteraceae are the ones with the larger number of
species. The presence of a large number of species of Poaceae in the park is considered a
natural contribution for the occurrence of fauna, mainly the grazers.
The terrestrial vegetation of the QNP faces several threats that can result in the
fragmentation of the ecosystems and/or alteration of its ecological conditions being able to
drive to the reduction of the biodiversity. From among the main threats were indicated (a)
the exploitation of woods, (b) conversion of natural areas for agriculture and dwelling, (c)
uncontrolled burning.
(iii) Marine fauna:
There is a large variability in the composition and of the coral reefs depending on the water
depth and local. The following genera of massif coral were identified: Porites, Diploastrea,
Galaxea, Acropora, Echinopora, Pachyseris, Lobophyllia, Tubastrea and Millepora.
Concerning the composition of hard corals, the predominant reefs are Porites, Playigyra,
Diploastrea, Acropora, Pocillopora, Pachyseris, Echinopora and Montipora. The following
genera of soft coral were identified: Lihotphyton, Sarcophyton and Sinularia. In general, the
state of conservation of the coral reefs is good.
In the Archipelago of the Quirimbas and proximities the occurrence of 7 marine mammal
species were confirmed, being 4 dolphins (Stenella longirotris, Tursiopsis truncatus,
Grampus griseus and Sousa plumbea) and 3 species of whale (Megaptera novaeangliae,
Physeter macrocephalus and Globicephala macrorhynchus).
A high probability of
occurrence of other 5 species of dolphins exists and other 5 species of whales.
In the Quirimbas Archipelago, were listed about 160 species of corals. Of these, five are
listed on the IUCN Red List, namely the sea turtles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata
and Lepidichelys olivacea), a dolphin (Turpiops truncatus) and the Dugong (Dugong dugon),
anecdotally reported within the QNP. There were also recorded 140 species of molluscs,
including some with the status of threatened species such as Charonia tritonis, Cypraecassis
rufa, Cassis cornuta and Tridacna squamosa.
Regarding the coral reefs fishes, Quisiva find itself in better state of conservation, compared
to the others reefs already studied and is the area where large commercial size fish is
captured. The fishing art that deserves most attention is the dragging net, therefore in all of
the localities where this was predominant, small size fish was the most common, case of the
Island of Quirimba and coast of Quissanga.
x
In 2004, the QNP initiated the monitoring of the population of ictiofauna of the sanctuaries
of Matemo, Ibo and Quilalea and its impact on the artisanal (small scale) fishing in the
adjacent areas. The monitoring uses cages and marking of two species of fish namely
Cephalopodis argus (grouper) and Scarus ghobban (parrot). The study registered inside and
outside of the sanctuaries, 53 species belonging to 17 families. The study identified large
predators of Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae and Serranidae, inside the sanctuaries of Matemo and
Ibo not found in the adjacent fishing areas. The average number of fish by cage was
significantly higher inside the sanctuaries of Matemo and Ibo than in the adjacent fishing
areas.. Conversely, in the sanctuary of Quilalea higher diversity of species was observed
outside the sanctuary. These contradictory results are attributed to the preliminary
character of the results.
Of the studies carried out on the captures of artisanal fishing there are some divergences in
the reported figures, particularly in the district of Quissanga. Although the studies of the IIP
have been carried out in at least two periods (2006 and 2007), these hide the
methodological details, which complicates the interpretation of the results and explanation
of the differences observed. On the basis of that observation and considering that studies
carried out by the QNP present the methodological details and a larger sample, despite
having been carried out observations in only one period (2007), we consider these as more
feasible to be used as base line.
(iv) Terrestrial fauna:
In the QNP at least 46 species of medium-large mammals were identified. Of these, 6 are
threatened to extinction and 13 protected by Law in Mozambique. About 447 species of
birds were identified, of which at least one species, Bucorvus leadbeateri, is threatened and
12 protected by Law in Mozambique. Despite the lack of updated information, at least 23
species of reptiles, 10 species of amphibians and 750 species of insects inside and near the
Park were registered. Populations of mammals were estimated, the areas of high
concentration of fauna, the elephant’s migration routes and the zones of high incidence of
human-wildlife conflicts were identified and mapped.
Inside the limits of the QNP the areas with severe human-wildife conflicts are the Villages of
Muaja, Naputa, Ndique, Namanje, Ntessa, Tapara and Tororo (District of Quissanga);
Manica, Muagamula and Machova (District of Macomia); Pedreira, Mitambo, Massassi and
Unguia (District of Meluco); Ngura and Jiúte (District of Ancuabe) and Aldeia 25 de Junho
belonging to the District of Pemba-Metuge. With the proclamation of the QNP these
conflicts have been reducing in frequency and severity due to a series of measures that the
authorities of the park are implementing in coordination with the local communities. The
organization of machambas in block is the approach that most contributed for the reduction
of the destruction of crops, ensuring better agricultural yield.
Although the studies referred in this report have created a base for the knowledge of the
current situation of the biodiversity of the QNP, there is still a lot to be investigated in view
to provide information for decision-making to the Park management. Among the important
aspects considered as major knowledge gaps are the following:
xi
α)
β)
χ)
δ)
ε)
φ)
γ)
η)
ι)
ϕ)
The current knowledge of the migratory routes of big terrestrial mammals allows
us to have an overview of the localities of collision and the focus of humanwildlife conflict, but still there is little information about the real possibilities to
make it compatible between the conservation of biodiversity and the community
development in a park with several inhabitants
Several studies of terrestrial fauna were conducted for big and medium
mammals, thus leaving out the small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects,
which can represent an important role in the stability of the ecosystems as well
as serve as indicator of alterations of the quality of the habitat
The efforts of monitoring, in particular the use of the MOMS, established a base
to start systematic observation of the terrestrial and marine flora and fauna.
However, the data collected still are not satisfactory and do not provide the
necessary knowledge base for decision-making for the conservation of
biodiversity. A mechanism that transforms the data of the MOMS into a platform
of decision-making for the management of the Park is still missing
The resources state of the terrestrial flora is affected by the patterns of
utilization of the resources (lawful and illegal) and the land use patterns by local
communities. However, little it is known about the impacts of land use and
cover change, the impacts of wildfires, exploitation of forest products (timber
and non-timber) on the conservation of the biodiversity.
Apart from the man-made changes on the vegetation, the vegetation can change
naturally following a plant succession process or from climatic changes in the
long term. This dynamic, that can result in important consequences for
biodiversity conservation, in particular in the quality of the habitats, was little
studied
Regarding the quality of the terrestrial habitats, nothing was documented about
the incidence of fires, distribution, quality, and availability of water and its
impact on the terrestrial fauna throughout the year. However it was reported
that it is in course the mapping of the permanent water bodies and their
distribution
There are several studies about marine fauna that emphasize the identification
and occurrence of different species in the marine region of the QNP. However,
there is little information about the quantities (abundance, frequency, etc.) as
well as the dynamic (including the seasonal variation, reproduction, growth,
mortality, etc.) of the marine fauna
About the marine fauna there are limited studies that evaluate the relationship
between the fauna and its habitat including the foraging habits, standards of
reproduction, age structure and the relation between the occurrence and
abundance of the fauna and marine flora
There are no biological studies of the Banco de São Lázaro. The existence of this
information would permit a better management of the bank especially in terms
of recreational and sport fishing
Currently there is no systematized information about the patterns of exploitation
of the marine invertebrate (including the trade of protected species); the
existence of this information would contribute to the elaboration of the
management measures of important inter-tidal and sublitorais?? zones;
xi
κ)
The Knowledge about the real impact of the marine sanctuaries is also incipient.
It is necessary to carry out more studies to evaluate if the established marine
sanctuaries function as nurseries of reproduction, or as areas of feeding or as
shelter or still as a source of youngsters for the adjacent fishing areas;
Based on the observations indicated above, and in line with the objective of the QNP
management plan, we identified some priority actions for monitoring and research oriented
to provide technical support to the Park management. Among these, the most priority are:
(i)
Continue to monitor the fish captures
(ii)
Establish a monitoring systems for the impact of the marine sanctuaries
(iii)
Monitor the distribution and occurrence of sea turtles
(iv)
Monitor the captures of marine invertebrates (ex: molluscs, holothurias,
crustaceous)
(v)
Continue and improve the collection of data in the context of MOMS
(vi)
Monitor the conversion of natural habitats into agricultural land or housing
(vii) Monitor the utilization of forest resources, timber and non-timber by local
communities
(viii) Evaluation of the impact of fire (as management tool or wildfire) in the species
composition and structure of the vegetation
(ix)
Inventory of carbon (baseline)
(x)
Monitoring of the commercialization of meat and others products obtained from
hunting inside and outside of the QNP
(xi)
Determination of the size, distribution and movement of the population of
elephants and other species of medium-large mammals
(xii) Factors influencing the occurrence of human-wildlife conflicts and the impacts of
the programs of mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts on humans and wildlife
populations
(xiii) Study of the impact of the electric fence in the exclusion of the elephant from
the residential zones (villages)
(xiv) comparative study of the approaches to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts
The implementation of these actions requires coordinated effort among the authorities of
the QNP and others partners such as the National Institutes (e.g. IIP, IDPPE), Universities
(e.g. EMU, UniLurio), National Centers (CDS- Coastal Zones), among others.
xi
1. Introduction
The present study was commissioned by WWF-Mozambique with the main objective to
evaluate the state of the biodiversity of the Quirimbas National Park (QNP). The study
answers some of the challenges that the QNP has in view to guarantee the conservation of
ecosystems and species of plants and animals on marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Previous
studies revealed that the high human population density, particularly in the coastal region,
imposes a high pressure over the biological resources, since fishing, hunting and exploitation
of forest resources are among the major livelihood strategies for local communities. In
addition, the crossing of large-scale fauna routes (such as elephants) with the routes of human
circulation and the establishment of agricultural fields about these routes has turned out in
conflicts between the fauna and the local residents. However, despite of these constraints the
work done by the project of the Development of the Quirimbas National Park established
mechanisms of adaptive management having identified areas where the population density is
low and that the conservation would be possible with the minimum of conflict and routes of
large-scale animals. The recognition of the QNP as an area of global priority for
conservation of the biodiversity due to its richness in the terrestrial ecosystems as well as
marine ecosystems brings about the need to reflection about assuring such conservation. At
the same time, having noticed the limited knowledge about the state of conservation and the
dynamic of the biological resources of the QNP, it was proposed this study with the objective
to contribute in the systematization of the existing information, identify gaps in the
knowledge of the state of biodiversity and propose measures of conservation, research and
monitoring. Therefore, this study has the general objective (according to the terms of
reference): Based on the Park’s current and possibly future management objectives and
priorities develop a concise and integrated research and monitoring strategy for the
Quirimbas National Park that effectively informs the park administration and its decision
making. This should be done through: (i) Identifying the current state of scientific knowledge
from previous research done, (ii) Review ongoing research and monitoring activities and their
quality and effectiveness in informing the park administration and their relation to the Park’s
current and possibly future objectives; (iii) Make recommendations on their improvemen.
The specific objectives for the present study are to: (i) Conduct a critical review of the state
of scientific knowledge in the QNP area, including an analysis of the scope and quality of
scientific studies done to date; (ii) Critical review of the current ongoing monitoring and
research activities of the park and their effectiveness and utilization by the park
administration in making informed management decisions; (iii) Identify the main gaps in the
present state of scientific knowledge in relation to the current and possibly future
management objectives of the park; (iv) Integrate the various studies into an overall report of
the state of biodiversity in the QNP; (v) Suggest management and zoning interventions based
on the results of the review and in close relation to the management priorities and objectives
for the park; (vi) Suggest a prioritized, integrated and concise program for research and
monitoring for the next five years of the park that informs management objectives and
priorities (this can include already ongoing research and monitoring activities) including
financial implications and implementation modalities; (vii) Analyze and make
recommendations on how the various research initiatives in the QNP landscape are planned,
carried out and coordinated.
The methodology for the achievement of the objectives of this study consisted of the revision
of literature, concentrated on the studies and reports about the QNP and adjacent areas.
1
Additionally it was carried out a seminar to prepare the research program and analysis of the
preliminary report. The results of the study was presented in two essential part, being the first
part consisting of (i) the description of the current state of the biodiversity of the QNP (ii)
identification and analysis of knowledge gaps on the biodiversity of the QNP, (iii) the current
threats to the conservation and (iv) management options; and the second part that contains the
research biodiversity monitoring plan.
2
2. Geography
2.1 Location
Created in 2002, the Quirimbas National Park (QNP) is located in northern coast of
Mozambique. More specifically the park has its boundaries within Cabo Delgado Province
which are made up by parts of six central districts of the same province, namely: Meluco,
Ancuabe, Macomia, Ibo, Pemba-Metuge and Quissanga. The latter is the only district that has
its entire surface within the park. QNP covers an area of approximately 7506 km2, of which
about 80% (5984 km2) is occupied by the mainland and the remaining 20% (1,522 km 2) are
composed of island and marine habitats.
Astronomically the park is situated between within the following geographic coordinates:
Latitude: 12° 00 '00 " S and 12 ° 55' 04" S
Longitude: 39° 10 '00 " E and 40 ° 39' 44" E
The QNP extension is approximately 100 km starting from the mouth of Tari River, up to
Mucojo village in Macomia District (Figure 1), including the undersea of the Banco de S.
Lázaro, which is located 42 nautical miles east of Ibo island (MITUR, 2003).
2.2 Limits
The QNP bordered to the East by Indian Ocean and to the North by the EN243 road (MelucoMacomia) and also the villages along the floodplain of Messala River. In the South the park
is limited by the human settlements situated along the agricultural lowlands of PembaMetuge distric. The western boundary of the park is more complex and bounded down the
rivers: Montepuez Nacojo, Nenete, Messala and Muagide, including inselbergs of Meluco
district and the upper meanders of Messala River (MITUR, 2003).
3
Figure 1. Geographic location of the QNP
The marine side of the park consists of 11 islands in the southern part of the Quirimbas
Archipelago, of which four (Ibo, Matemo, Quisiwe and Quirimba) have a long tradition of
permanent human occupation. The other islands in the perimeter of the park include:
Quipaco, Mefundvo, Quilalea, Sencar, Quirambo, Fion and Rolas Island.
(i) Macaloe Island
Macaloe island falls within the following geographic coordinates: 11o 59 '00 "S and 40o 55'
00" E. It is close to Ponta Pangane, an important site for coastal trade and fishing. There is
no permanent camp on the island, neither a source of fresh water. However, in the south
beach of the island, it can be seen some migrant fishermen camps. The island was made up
by coralline material, thus there is a huge predominance of dry shrub. Mangrove trees can
only be found in the north of the island, near the shoreline (Mozambique Frontier 1997,
1998a and 1998b; EIA Rovuma Basin, 2006).
(ii) Mogundula Island
The island of Mogundula is about 1 km from Ponta Pangane and it’s located within 12 o 02
'32''S and 40o 32' 36''E geographic coordinates. The island, which has an oval shape, is
relatively small (0.5 km x 0.7 km). There is a small temporary camp for about 15 people in
the Westside of the island. Additionally, the island has no source of fresh water although
there is a shallow lagoon in the centre of the island with 150 m in diameter, which is
surrounded by mangrove vegetation. (Frontier Mozambique 1997, 1998a and 1998b; EIA
Rovuma Basin, 2006).
4
(iii) Rolas Island
The Rolas Island is located in the North Matemo Island: 12o 08 '48 " N and 40o 33' 42" E.
The island is small with its size being 1 km x 0.5 km. There are no signs of people living
permanently, but this site is used by fishermen, who set up their camps. There is fresh water
on the island (Mozambique Frontier 1997, 1998a and 1998b; EIA Rovuma Basin, 2006).
(iv) Matemo Island
Matemo island is located within 12 o 12 '30 "N and 40 o 36' 00" E. It is the largest island in
the park, and its size varying from 7.3 km x 3.3 km. A wide number of campsites can be seen
along the eastern side of the island. The island has about 2000 inhabitants. There is a source
for fresh water in south of the island. Matemo has a variety of habitats, including mangrove
swamps which include a small plantation of coconut palms. Matemo Sanctuary was
established in 2003 in the north-western coast of the island and has 3 km long (Frontier
Mozambique 1997, 1998a and 1998b; EIA Rovuma Basin, 2006).
(v) Ibo Island
Ibo is located at 12o 41 'S and 40o 35' E, with a size of about 3.6 km x 4.5 km. The island has
the largest population and has historically been the largest port (now transferred to Pemba).
Fresh water can be found through wells and boreholes. An extensive mangrove area of 4.5
km can be seen in the north coast of Quirimba island. Quissanga channel separates the island
from the mainland by Ponta Quissanga where a large area of mangrove lies upon
(Mozambique Frontier 1997, 1998a and 1998b; EIA Rovuma Basin, 2006).
(vi) Quirimba Island
With an approximately size of almost 6.2 km x 2.9 km, Quirimba island is located at 12o 25 'S
and 40o 37' E. The island has a village in the north which is the residence of approximately
3000 people. This population has increased mainly due to the influx of people during the
civil war. Nearly 75% of the island was converted into coconut plantations. In the north of the
island a narrow channel separates the mangrove area of the island, to those of Ibo Island,
whereas coral reefs and seaweeds can be found in the East side of the island. The south side
of the island is comprised by a large intertidal area (shared by the Sencar and Quilalia
islands) which shares the border with the Montepuez Channel.
(vii) Sencar Island
Sencar island is located in south of the Quirimba island, at 12o 28 '42 "N and 40o 39' 00" E. It
has a size of about 1.6 km x 0.6 km. A considerable stretch of mangrove is located in South
and Central parts of the Island. Sencar has only 60 inhabitants which occupy the north lands
of the island. (EIA Rovuma Basin, 2006).
(vii) Quilalia
Quilalaia island lies in south of the intertidal zone of the Quirimba island and it is located at
12o 29 '36''S and 40o 36' 12 "E. This is also a small island and measures 0.65km x 0.35 km in
size. Quilalia is the less populated island with approximately than 50 inhabitants, some of
5
them living there in permanent basis. There is no fresh water on the island. (Frontier
Mozambique 1997, 1998a and 1998b; EIA Rovuma Basin, 2006).
(ix) Mefunvo Island
Mefunvo is situated in the South of Montepuez Bay more precisely at 12o 33 '00 "S and 40o
36' 00''E, The island measures 3.3 km x 3.1 km in size. The population of island estimated in
2000 inhabitants. Likewise Quilalia and others, this island has no fresh water. The island has
also an intertidal zone with two distinct patterns: The Westside predominantly occupied by
sandy platform and some seagrass beds and in the eastside mainly comprised by an
association of algae and seagrass (Frontier Mozambique 1997, 1998a and 1998b; EIA
Rovuma Basin, 2006).
(x) Island Quissiva
Quissiva is located in south of Mefunvo island and East of Arimbi Bay, more precisely at 12 o
35 '42 "S and 40o 37' 00" E. The island is small with only 2.8 km x 1.2 km in size. It has
been inhabited for 40 years. The shore is characterized by areas with sand banks along the
western boundary. A sandy platform and seagrass beds can be found in the north and south
parts of the island. There are not mangrove areas in the island (Frontier Mozambique 1997,
1998a and 1998b; EIA Rovuma Basin, 2006).
(xi) Island Quipaco
Quipaco Island is situated in the South Bay within Arimbi Bay of Quipaco. Precisely it is
located at 12 o 41 '00 "N and 40 o 36' 42" E. The island is also small in size (1 km x 0.9 km).
Although the island has no population that resides permanently, this place is regularly visited
by fishermen and people exploring mangroves (Frontier Mozambique 1997, 1998a and
1998b; EIA Rovuma Basin, 2006).
2.3 Climate
The climate of QNP is in general, the same type of climate of Cabo Delgado province.
Hence, according to Köppen's climate classification, QNP has tropical dry savanna climate
(Aw). Specifically, the area covered by the park is characterized by dry sub-humid weather.
These climates have a pronounced dry season, with the driest month having precipitation less
than 60 mm. This type of climate is normally comprised by two distinct seasons: the dry and
rainy. Thus, the rainy season that is felt is the region is associated with the presence on the
region of the ITCZ. This is the reason why the park has an extensive network of
watercourses of which four are the major rivers, namely: Messala, Montepuez Muagamula
and Muaguide and many others of secondary, but all with a significant importance to
agriculture and wildlife.
Spatial distribution of rainfall is not uniform throughout the park. Rainfall is more abundant
on the coast, decreasing steadily inwards inland. The average annual rainfall ranges from 800
6
mm to 1200 (Figure 2). In general, most of the rainfall occurs in the period between
November and March, varying significantly either in quantity, as well as spatially.
Geographically, high levels precipitation (1000 mm to 1200 mm) occurs in the coastal
districts of Macomia and Quisanga. Continentality1 and altitude represent the factors that
most influence the spatial variation of rainfall along the surface of the park. The annual
average potential evapotranspiration varies from 1300 mm to 1600 mm, creating a deficit in
water balance of the park (FAO, 1995).
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of rainfall in QNP
Likewise, within the QNP temperature values vary significantly throughout the year, varying
between 20o and 28o C. However, temperature spatial distribution is almost uniform across
the park boundaries (Figure 3). The coldest months are June and July, where the minimum
annual average temperature can reach 15º C. In contrary, the warmest months of the year are
January and February, with temperatures reaching are above 33º C (FAO, 1995).
7
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of annual average temperature in QNP
2.4 Landscape and Hydrography
In terms of geomorphology, the QNP is located in the gneiss-magmatitic complex of
Mozambique 'belt', where 'inselbergs' stand out on intrusive rocks of the Pre-Cambrian.
Relief pattern of park is similar to that of the country, which is in a form of stairs. Thus, the
altitude increases from the coast to the interior. The highest elevations are located in the west
of park, in Meluco district and can reach up 800 m. The highest peak is Mount Kuero (SDDS,
2006). A considerable part of the interior is made up by lowlands with altitude varying from
200 m and 500 m, (Figure 4). There is some correlation between the topography, especially
the altitude and agro-climatic conditions of the region. Generally, high rainfall values are
recorded at higher altitude zones.
The area of the park is crossed by a number of periodic rivers and watercourses. The main
rivers in the park include: Messala, Montepuez Muagamula, Muaguide, Mivoroto, Mezingue,
Sivuca. The largest logon is Bilibiza which is located in Quissanga district. These
characteristics are so essential for agricultural activities and wildlife within the park.
8
Figure 4. Shaded Relief and hydrography of the QNP
2.5 Soils
The park consists of a variety of soil types. The islands have predominantly sandy soils of
coastal dunes. Large areas of the coast are characterized by sandy loam soils, that often have
good drainage and also by alluvial soils with coarse texture. In the interior of the park it can
be found predominantly red soils of loam and brown clay soils. The western part is mostly
occupied by red clay soils which has high depth and excellent capacity for water retention
(Figure 5).
Most of the soils are sandy, but with significant presence of clay loam. These soils are
classified as good to moderate soils, generally with good drainage. In contrary, the river
valleys are dominated by alluvial soils (Fluvisols), that present dark and heavy texture,
normally classified as medium to moderately poor soils. These types of soils are often subject
to regular flooding (FAO, 1995).
9
Figure 5. Soil map of the QNP
2.6 Bathymetry
The coastal region of QNP does not present significant variations in depth. However, the
entire coastal zone presents an irregular bathymetry with values ranging from 90 m 400 m
depth (Figure 6). This variation of the sea depth is responsible for the effect of wave’s
diffraction along the entire coast. This phenomenon is extremely important because it
reduces the impact and the speed of the propagation and oscillation of the waves. One of the
most important features of the region is the Banco de S. Lázaro, which constitute a mountain
"island" at the bottom of the sea (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Bathymetry of the coast of QNP
10
2.7 Land use
In terms of land use, two distinct patterns can be seen in the park. The coastline which is
characterized by mangrove trees and the interior land, which is predominantly occupied by
herbaceous shrubland and open forest (DINAGECA, 1999, see Section Terrestrial
Vegetation). Urban areas occupy tiny portions of land within the park. However, some areas
of Meluco, Macomia, Quissanga and Metuge are also occupied by smallholder farmers with
rainfed based agriculture.
2.8 Population
The population of the QNP is distributed across the103 villages located in 6 districts that
comprise the park. Since 2006, QNP the population has risen and now it is estimated that
there 93 697 inhabitants living there. This figure does not include the residents of the buffer
zone, which are estimated to be 30 714 inhabitants, distributed by 26 villages. Quissanga
district is the only one with their size entirely within the park boundaries. Therefore
Quissanga is the most populous district within the park and has about 40 781 inhabitants
distributed by 47 villages. The majority of the population living in the QNP is along the
coastline (mainly in the districts of Quissanga, Macomia and Pemba-Malema) and along the
main roads. Nevertheless, many villages within the park are scattered over large areas
resulting in low population density, particularly in the districts of Meluco and Quissanga
(Figure 7).
The majority of the population living in the park is employed in agriculture, including animal
husbandry and fisheries. Agriculture is predominant inside the park boundaries whereas is
more fishing predominant on the coast. Agricultural activity is carried out using traditional
techniques in small family farms.
11
Figure 7. Spatial distribution of population in QNP
Table 1. Distribution of population by Administrative Post
District
Administrative
Post
Ancuabe
Acuabe
Mesa
Ibo
Quirimba
Chai
Macomia
Mucojo
Meluco
Muaguide
Metuge
Bibiliza
Mahate
Quissanga
Total
Ibo
Macomia
Meluco
Pemba-Metuge
Quissanga
Total
Population
(2007)
45.521
31.732
5.997
3.512
16.565
27.845
28.459
14.697
10.487
37.757
12.067
18.657
4.468
257.764
Source: INE, 2008
As stated in the chapter on geographical location, the district Quissanga is the only having its
entire boundaries within the QNP. In this regard, the figures of the population size presented
in Table 1 and the population density shown in the map of Figure 7, where highlighted as a
demographic indicator of the districts comprising the QNP. Hence, the values of population
size for each administrative post do not constitute necessarily the real figures of QNP
population. This applies also to administrative posts, which are the smaller territorial units
12
than a district. Updated data on population size by villages would be ideal to estimate
accurately the total population living in the QNP. Nevertheless, data from the last population
census2, will be made available soon for the village level.
13
3. Marine Componente
3.1 Marine Vegetation
3.1.1 Mangrove
The QNP’ mangroves differ in its distribution, probably conditioned by factors such as soil
type, degree of exposure of the site to tidal action, which influences the availability of physical and chemical parameters (salinity, pH), so important aspects in the development of mangrove vegetation. In terms of species, there are species that occur in some islands and not in
others, depending on the characteristics of each site. Sonneratia alba, is a species found in
the QNP that occurs only in the northern and central Mozambique (Bandeira et al, 2009), so
its presence in the park is important for better conservation, so QNP is single marine conservation area / coastal area in the North.
Regarding the structural attributes of the mangrove vegetation, the description provided by
Frontier (1997 and 1998) may not reflect what was in place, because the methodology used to
quantify mangrove is not appropriate as can be found in some studies made by Kairo et al.
(2002); Bosire et al. (2003); Kairo et al. (2008), Amade (2008) and Bandeira et al. (2009).
For example, the plot size used, 5 m x 5 m, is used only to quantify saplings of mangroves or
in juvenile stage. To quantify the trees in the adult stage, has been used larger plots of 10 m x
10 m. Therefore the extrapolation may not be correct. The interpretation of structural
attributes in the mangrove forest has been done through indexes, such as index to value the
importance of species (which indicates the contribution of each species in terms of
occurrence, abundance and basal area), and the complexity index (which assesses the
vegetation of the site, and this is given by the total number of species, average height of trees,
density of stems per hectare and total basal area of trees) that best summarizes the
characteristics of vegetation (Kairo et al., 2002; Bosire et al., 2003; Kairo et al. 2008 e
Amade, 2008).
Studies of the Frontier (1997 and 1998) do not indicate accurately the conservation status of
species of mangrove in QNP, only indicate where it is highly exploited, which makes it
impossible to know the degradation level, and if it is need or not to aply urgent conservation
strategies.
Unusually for Ibo island, Bandeira et al. (2009), made the description of the mangrove,
through plots of 10 m x 10 m, and got the importance of species, which showed Sonneratia
alba as the most important species and presented relative density (24.36%), relative frequency (36 %) and relative dominance (77.69%). The index of complexity of the forest was
14
1.43 and it resulted of the product of the diameter (10.62 cm), number of species (4), stem
density (2080 ha-1), height (2.98 m) and basal area (2.72 m2 ha-1).
Ibo and Quirimba islands, presented the highest number of mangrove species compared to the other
islands of the park. The species R. mucronata was found in all the islands and the X. granatum was
the less found. In the Quilaluia, Quisiva and Rolas islands, the mangrove vegetation was not found
(Table 2.)
Table 2. Occurrence of mangrove species per site in QNP O = Occurs; N = Does Not occur
Species
Macaloe Mogundula Matemo
Avicennia marina
N
O
N
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza
O
N
O
Ceriops tagal
N
O
O
Rhizophora mucronata
O
O
O
Sonneratia alba
N
N
N
Xilocarpus granatum
N
N
O
Altura (m)
25
Am
20
Ibo
O
O
O
O
O
N
Bg
Quirimba Sencar Mefunvo Quipaco
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
S
N
N
O
N
N
Ct
Rm
Sa
15
10
Quipaco
Mefunvo
Sencar
Quirimba
Ibo
Matemo
Macaloe
0
Mogundula
5
Figure 8. Height of trees by species in different islands of the QNP. Am = Avicennia marina, Bg = Bruguiera gimnorrhyza
Ct = Ceriops tagal, Rm = Rhizophora mucronata, Sa = Sonneratia alba..
In studies of the Frontier (1997 and 1998), some data about trees height are missing, and
which exist were obtained through the estimation and not by calculating the average measurements in the field, as was done in other studies such as Kairo et al. (2002); Bosire et al.
(2003), Kairo et al. (2008) and Amade (2008) (Error: Reference source not found).
The tallest trees were found in Mogundula and Sencar, and the lowest at Ibo and Mefunvo
islands. These characteristics often have been caused by differences in some factors such as
salinity, vegetation, topography, soil texture (Amade, 2008).
15
Xg
Am
40
Bg
Ct
Rm
Sa
Xg
2
Sa
Diâmetro Médio (m /ha)
Rm
Am
Bg
Ct
Sa
800
400
Rm
Quipaco
Mefunvo
Sencar
Sa
Xg
75
50
25
Am
20
Bg
Ct
Rm
Quipaco
0
25
1200
Quirimba
Ibo
Matemo
Mogundula
Macaloe
Xg
Ct
Mefunvo
Quipaco
Mefunvo
Rm
Altura (m)
1600
Sencar
Quirimba
Ibo
Matemo
Sa
15
10
Figure 9. Structural Attributes of Species in QN
The Sencar and Ibo islands presented the highest number of trees per species. The largest
average diameters and relative density of trees were found in Sencar, Quirimba and Ibo.
Matemo showed higher basal area of the forest. The major regeneration of the species C.
tagal, R. mucronata and X. granatum was found in Sencar, and S. alba in Mefunvo (Figure 9.
).
3.1.2 Seagrasses
There were a higher occurrence of species of seagrass in Ibo, Quirimba, and Matemo Islands.
Species that occurred more in QNP are Thalassia hemprichii, Thalassodendron ciliatum, and
Cymodocea serrulata was less found Table 3.. Enhalus acaroides species is rare in southern
Mozambique (www.seagrassnet.org), so it is essential that there is a good strategy of management to protect this species, because of its restricted distribution in the country. Their existence in the park can also be important for its preservation.
16
Quipaco
Mefunvo
Sencar
Quirimba
Ibo
Matemo
0
Mogundula
Quipaco
Mefunvo
Sencar
Quirimba
Ibo
Matemo
Mogundula
5
0
Macaloe
Macaloe
0
Mogundula
30
Bg
Sencar
60
Am
100
Quirimba
90
0
Ibo
Xg
10
Matemo
Sa
20
Mogundula
Rm
30
Macaloe
Ct
2
Bg
Quipaco
Mefunvo
Sencar
Local
Número de Juvenis/m
Am
Ibo
Matemo
Mogundula
0
Quirimba
25
Macaloe
Dominância Relativa (%)
2
Ct
50
120
Área Basal Total (m /ha)
Bg
75
Macaloe
Densidade Relativa (%)
Am
100
Studies of the Frontier (1997 and 1998), presented only the species of seagrasses that occur in
the QNP but does not talk about abundance, density and frequency of them. It doesn’t
indicate the degree of coverage and the conservation status of species (www.seagrassnet.org).
Quipaco
Quisiva
Mefunvo
Quilaluia
Sencar
Quirimba
Ibo
Matemo
Rolas
Mogundula
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Macaloe
Número de Espécies de Ervas Marinhas
Transects were made and plots, but is not indicated the number and size of plots used for the
study. The interpretation of the data was not made through indexes and statistics to allow a
better precision of the structure of seagrass meadows in each site.
Figure 10. Number of species of seagrasses in the site of QNP
The greatest number of species of seagrasses were found in Ibo, Quirimba and Matemo
(Figure 10. ).
17
Table 3. Occurrence of seagrasses species in each site of QNP . O = occurs, -- = does not occur
Species
Cymodocea rotundata
Cymodocea serrulata
Enhalus acaroides
Halodule uninervis
Halophila ovalis
Halophila stipulacea
Holodule wrightii
Syringodium isoetifolium
Thalassia hemprichii
Thalassodendron ciliatum
M
a
c
a
l
o
e
S
S
S
S
S
M
o
g
u
n
d
u
l
a
S
-
R
o
l
a
s
S
M
a
t
e
m
o
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
I
b
o
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Q
u
i
r
i
m
b
a
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
e
n
c
a
r
S
S
Q
u
i
l
a
l
u
i
a
S
S
S
S
M
e
f
u
n
v
o
S
S
S
S
S
S
Q
u
i
s
i
v
a
S
S
-
Q
u
i
p
a
c
o
S
S
S
S
S
3.1.3 Seaweeds
The seaweeds were grouped into 4 groups of algae Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae)
Rhodophyta (red algae), Clorophyta (green algae) and Phaephyta (brown algae). Were found
more species of the group of red algae in all islands of QNP . The largest group of
Rhodophyta, Clorophytas and Phaephyta were found in Quirimba and Ibo the islands. The
seaweeds per group can be seen in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 (Error: Reference source not found).
In studies of the Frontier (1997 and 1998), seaweeds have been grouped in four groups mentioned above, but there was no information about the percentage of coverage in site and the
conservation status of species.
Transects were made, but is not indicated the number and size of plots used for the study, like
often it has been done. There is no evidence through indexes and statistics that indicate the
accurate sites with more or less diversity of the species (Figueiredo et al., 2004).
18
Cyanophyta
Chlorophyta
Phaeophyta
Rhodophyta
80
60
40
Quipaco
Quisiva
Mefunvo
Quilaluia
Sencar
Quirimba
Ibo
Matemo
Rolas
0
Mogundula
20
Macaloe
Grupos de Macroalgas
100
Figure 11. Number of seaweeds by the Local QNP. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) Rhodophyta (red algae), Clorophyta
(green algae) and Phaephyta (brown algae)
3.1.4 Conservation status and threats of marine
vegetation
Table 4. Threats and conservation measures for marine vegetation of the QNP
Category -
Threats
Site
Mangroves
Cutting
mangroves for
various purposes
(primary source
of fuel wood
and construction
materials, fence
Mefunvo - all
species that
occur in local
Ibo, Matemo –
unspecified;
Mogundula mainly Ceriops
tagal
Quipaco Bruguiera
gymnorrhiza
Most
endangered
Species
(Ceriops
tagal);
Bruguiera
gymnorrhiza
Conservation
Measures
Made cutting of
trees near the upper limit of the
mangrove, or not
less than 10 meters
from the coastline,
to avoid disruption
of protective barrier formed by the
trees near the
shoreline, promote
the use of resources that do not
degrade ecosystems;
Promote the replanting / restoration of mangrove
areas where exploitation is made;
Promote the plant19
ing of crops / trees
of rapid growth, as
an alternative of
mangrove trees.
Seagrasses
Fishing
All sites with
activities,
seagrasses
presence
of
boats, nets and
fishing
traps,
collection
of
invertebrates
Unspecified
Monitoring
the
activities
conducted in the
sites
with
seagrasses
meadows
whenever possible,
avoiding to use
instruments
that
could damage the
habitat; the local
people aware of
the importance of
these sites in the
maintenance
of
adjacent habitats.
Seaweeds
Collection
of All local with
invertebrates,
seaweeds
fishing
activities,
the
presence
of
networks
and
fishing traps
Unspecified
Monitoring
the
activities conducted at these sites,
avoiding whenever
possible to use instruments
that
could damage the
habitat, the local
population aware
of the importance
of these sites in the
maintenance of adjacent habitats.
According to Decree No 45/2004 which describes the Rules of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the national and international law considers the mangrove forests, native forests,
and other ecosystems as having protected status. This is in accordance with the Convention
on Biological Diversity, which has as main objectives the conservation of biological diversity
and the sustainable use of its components. From the CBD (Convention on Biodiversity), both
genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with these are no longer freely accessible, creating in this way criteria for their regulation through standards for fair distribution of
benefits to holders resources as well as the people in possession of traditional knowledge
about them.
20
Despite the law (Decree No. 45/2004) and the biodiversity convention, emphasizing the
importance of protecting themselves and avoid activities that may damage ecosystems like
mangrove forests, seagrasses and seaweed, in many places these instruments are not used to
preserve the biodiversity, on one hand because they don’t know its importance and another
because of the negligence its importance.
3.2 Marine Fauna
Biogeographically, the taxonomic composition suggests that the marine fauna existing in the
Quirimbas Archipelago is composed predominantly by tropical species with Indo-Pacific
affinity, apparently due to the presence of coral reefs and the direct influence of the South
Equatorial Current, whereas the channel Mozambique, which has influence on the
Mozambican coast corresponds to the branch of the South Equatorial Current that by
approaching the African continent precisely in Cabo Delgado (Latitude 11ºS) from the North
Pacific and the Indonesian archipelago, it flows to the south of the continent in parallel with
the Mozambican coast, in general, and the Coast of Cabo Delgado, in particular, providing
the marine and coastal habitats of the Quirimbas Archipelago with larvae that brings from the
North Pacific and Indonesia (Fieux & Reverdin 2001; Fieux 2001).
The many consultations with communities, research works, and meetings with stakeholders
resulted in identifying a number of priority issues to be addressed by QNP such as (i) overfishing in artisanal fisheries, (ii) recreational and sport fishing, (iii) the pressure on resources
and intertidal habitats, (iv) the regeneration of coral reef after the El Niño / Southern
Oscillation in 1998 / 9, (v) the conservation of sea grass habitats, (vi) conservation of the
Banco de São Lázaro, (vii) conservation of marine turtles, dugong, whale shark, (viii) trade of
protected species, and (ix) harmonization of objectives and interests of tourism and fisheries.
To this end, some government institutions and NGOs including the Ministry of Tourism,
WWF and the Provincial Government of Cabo Delgado and as well as individual projects
have provided some work to answer some of these issues.
For the introduction of management measures aimed at conservation of these resources, there
is urgent need for studies to the knowledge of the point of the actual situation. In general,
little is known about the marine life in the Quirimbas Archipelago given the remote location
and logistics that the region requires for any type of research. Existing known and available
studies date from 1996, when a marine research project, Whittington et al (1997 and 1998)
gave a description of the diversity and patterns of use of coastal and marine resources of 11
islands (Macaloe, Mogundula, Rolas, Matemo, Igbo, Quirimba, sense, Quilalea, Mefunvo,
Quisiva and Quipaco) and Gell (1997), in the same project, gave a characterization of
artisanal fisheries of the seagrass Island Quirimbas.
With establishment of the Quirimbas National Park in 2002, multiply the efforts to improve
the knowledge of marine fauna and are being implemented monitoring programs aimed at
sustainable management of the Park, involving several institutions / individuals Ministry
Tourism, WWF, the Provincial Government of Cabo Delgado and individual projects,
graduate students, consultants and local community.
21
3.2.1 Marine invertebrates of the intertidal zone
The intertidal zones are transitional environments between land and sea, with high biological
interest, and are prone ecosystems for fixing the epifauna such as gastropods, bivalves,
echinoderms, barnacles, and crabs, as well as flora and migratory species (fish and birds),
who visit the area to feed, or as a shelter or to reproduce, thereby making the intertidal areas
are considered "nursery" and have natural connections with the marine and coastal systems
adjacent.
Like other beaches in East Africa, the tides are semi-diurnal (Ngusaru 1997), which means
that in 24 hours, the intertidal organisms are subjected to two cycles of exposure to air and
submersion in seawater. According to Tide table, the theoretical maximum length of an
emergence, ie the time interval between a low tide and the lowest peak of high tide in the
highest tides is about 6 hours.
According to the geological classification of the Mozambican coast, the substrate of the coast
of Cabo Delgado is coral, consolidated from coral reefs during the Pleistocene (Ngusaru
1997). As characteristic of the entire north coast, the coast of Cabo Delgado has a succession
of sandy beaches, dunes, coral reefs, mangroves and rock (especially at the mouth of streams)
(Fischer et al. (1990). Some areas are covered with sand, seagrass beds and pebbles from the
collapse of coral.
The biota of the intertidal zone of Cabo Delgado is determined by the direct influence of the
Mozambique Channel, which has an annual average surface temperature of 25 ° C and
average salinity of 35 ‰ (Burchett 2000). However, coastal waters are warmer more than the
Channel, reaching values higher than immediately after the tides.
According to studies by Whittington el al. (1997.1998), the richest fauna was found in the
islands of Central and South America (Table 5).
Table 5. Number of common taxa recorded by Whittington et al. (1997,1998);
Group of Islands
Taxa
Gastropod Bivalves
13
32
Northern
(Macaloe,Mogundula,
Rolas e Matemo)
Central
(Ibo, 30
Quirimba, Sencar e
Quilaleia)
Southern (Mefunvo, 13
Quisiva e Quipaco)
Total
Echinoderms Crustaceans
10
4
59
14
17
3
64
31
4
2
50
3.2.2 Coral Reefs
Coral reefs of the Quirimbas Archipelago and their associated fauna are best described in a
series of studies by Whittington et al (1997,1998) that, through the Program for Marine
22
Research Darwin / Frontier Mozambique, conducted between 1996 and 1998 studies on (i)
distribution, structure and composition of the reefs, including the presence and abundance of
endangered species or commercially important, (ii) on the species composition of marine
invertebrates, and (iii) assessment on the size and diversity of 73 species of 6 families of key
reef fish (including Acanthuridae, Chaetodontidae, Pomocanthudae, Tetradontidae, Mullidae
and Balistidae) (iv) patterns of resource uses accessible to artisanal fisheries, and on (v)
natural and anthropogenic impact on the corals.
In 2002, Motta performed a study at Channel Sencar inserted in the CORDIO program to
evaluate the degree of bleaching and the level of coral regeneration following the El Niño /
Southern Oscillation in 1998 / 9.
The province of Cabo Delgado holds about 525 km2 of coral reefs, classified as fringing type.
Within the Quirimbas National Park (QNP) coral reefs occur in several ways, with the
exception of some sites of the western shores of the islands, dominated by sand banks and sea
grass beds. The main types of reefs found include steep walls, often found in the Southeast of
the islands, and shallow coral gardens, with gentle slope. Figure 12 illustrates the distribution
of the main stands of coral reefs found within the Quirimbas National Park
23
Figure 12. Map of Reef Corals and other coastal and marine habitats within Quirimbas National Park, according to
Anadarko (2007).
From the standpoint of diversity, the southern islands of the Quirimbas registered 160 species
representing 55 genera, suggesting the existence of a great diversity. During a rapid
assessment held by Telford et al 1999, in the northern islands of the Quirimbas were
24
identified 20 genera (including 15 hard corals and soft corals 5) belonging to 11 families. The
main genera found appear to be Acropora and Porites, and the most common species include
Favites spp. Platygyra spp. Lobophyton spp. Sinularia spp. and Sacrcophyton spp, whose
abundance and species diversity varies between the islands:
ROLAS ISLAND: This island is characterized by a poorly developed reef with gentle slope
and low roughness. The most dominant is the staghorn coral, which comes to form
homogeneous colonies.
MATEMO ISLAND: This island has major differences with respect to the slope. In this
context, on the east coast the island has a gentle slope in the southeast and there are vertical
walls of coral. The composition of the substrate varies from rocky (most dominant) and the
mixed sand. The most prevalent forms of corals include branching and massive. The southern
island is a reef wall, with great diversity of corals and fish that are an attraction for diving and
recreational fishing and sport.
IBO ISLAND: On this island the reef is distributed in the north and east coast, with a slope
generally mild with the exception of the existing wall at the tip of the island. Many sites are
dominated by bedrock, reaching 50% form the substrate. The biota is dominated by hard
corals. Forms of corals most prevalent include staghorn, branching and foliose.
Were recorded the following genera Porites, Diploastrea, Galaxea, Acropora, Echinopora,
Pachyseris, Lobophyllia, Tubastrea and .Millepora.
QUIRIMBAS ISLAND: The main stands of corals occur on the east coast of the island, with
very gentle slope (5-10%). We identified the following genera Porites, Playigyra,
Diploastrea, Acropora, Pocillopora, Pachyseris, Echinopora and Montipora. Regarding the
soft corals were recorded following genres Lithophyton, Sarcophyton and Sinularia.
SENCAR ISLAND: The morphology of the reef varies considerably within the same island,
forming a generally gentle slope (0-5%). The most common identified corals include Porites,
Platygyra, Favites, Goniastrea, Galaxea, Acropora, Pocillopora, Echinopora, Turbinaria,
Pachyseris, Lobophyllia, and Plerogyra Tubastrea.
QUILALEA ISLAND: it is a relatively small island and its reef is characterized by large
morphological differences with respect to the type and coverage of the substrate. The biota is
dominated by coral with a mixture of different types of coral. The most abundant genera
include Porites, Acropora and Tubastrea.
MEFUNVO ISLAND: The coral reef is more developed in the northeast of the island, with
hard and soft corals in equal proportions.
QUISIVA ISLAND: The reef varies in slope. On the east coast corals occur at reef wall,
which is dominated by hard corals.
QUIPACO ISLAND: The reef more or less developed occurs in the northeast of the island
and has a gentle slope not supeiror to 10%. The biota is dominated by coral boulders
interspersed with sand banks and seagrass beds.
25
3.2.3 Reef Fish and Commercial Fish
Species diversity of reef fish within the QNP appears to be consistent in the sites studied by
Whittington et al. (1997, 1998), with low diversity reefs in the undeveloped reefs and high
diversity in well developed reefs.
In total, 375 species were recorded, of which over 300 were recorded in the reefs of South
Quirimbas, where the diversity is described in more detail at channels of the Sencar Island.
The most abundant species were identified in the family Acanthuridae (47%), Lutjanidae
(22%), and Chaetondontidae (14%). Large part of fish observed were of small size and were
herbivores, comprising 48%, followed by carnivorous fish (37%) while coralivorous and
omnivorous comprised about 10% each, in abundance.
The Table 6, 7 and 8 illustrate the number of species of reef an commercial fish recorded by
family and by gender, in each group of islands.
Table 6. Number of genus and species of reef and commercial fishes recorded at northern island group (Macaloe,
Mogundula,Rolas e Matemo), according to Whittington et al (1997,1998).
Family
Acanthuridae
Balistidae
Chaetodontidae
Mullidae
Pomacanthidae
Tetradontidae
Lethrinidae
Lutjanidae
Scaridae
Serranidae
Haemulidae
Carangidae
Sphyraenidae
Siganidae
Total
Nr of Genus
5
6
3
3
4
1
3
3
4
5
2
1
1
1
41
Nr of Species
17
10
23
7
11
5
6
9
16
18
7
3
1
1
134
Table 7. Number of genus and species of reef and commercial fishes recorded at central island group (Ibo, Quirimba,
Sencar and Quilalea), according to Whittington et al (1997,1998).
Familiy
Acanthuridae
Antennaridae
Anthiinae
Apogonidae
Balistidae
Belonidae
Blenniidae
Bothidae
Nr of ° de Genuss
4
1
2
4
6
1
4
1
Nr of Species
19
1
3
8
11
1
4
2
26
Caesonidae
Callyonimidae
Carangidae
Chirocentridae
Chaetodontidae
Cirrhitidae
Clupeidae
Dactylidae
Echeneidae
Engraulidae
Entriscidae
Fistularidae
Gerreidae
Gobiidae
Grammistidae
Haemulidae
Hemiramphidae
Holocentridae
Labridae
Lethrinidae
Lutjanidae
Microdesmidae
Mullidae
Muraenidae
Nemipteridae
Ostracidae
Pegasidae
Pinguipedidae
Platacidae
Platycephalidae
Plotosidae
Pomocanthidae
Pomacentridae
Priacanthidae
Rhynchobatus
Scaridae
Scorpaenidae
Serranidae
Siganidae
Sphyraenidae
Syngnathidae
Synodontidae
Teraponidae
Tetraodontidae
Zanclidae
Total
2
1
7
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
17
3
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
9
1
1
6
3
5
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
115
8
1
10
1
21
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
7
3
5
44
14
12
1
16
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
11
20
2
1
17
5
21
4
5
3
2
1
10
1
326
Table 8. Number of genus and species of reef and commercial fishes recorded at southern islands group (Mefunvo,
Quisiva and Quipaco), according to Whittington et al (1997, 1998).
27
Family
Acanthuridae
Balistidae
Chaetodontidae
Mullidae
Pomacanthidae
Tetradontidae
Lethrinidae
Lutjanidae
Scaridae
Serranidae
Haemulidae
Carangidae
Siganidae
Total
Nr of genus
5
6
4
3
4
1
3
3
4
5
2
1
1
42
Nr of Species
17
10
23
7
11
5
6
9
16
18
7
3
1
133
At the Banco de S. Lázaro, Saetre and Silva (1979) found only stocks of species of snapper
Lutjanus bohar, suggesting the existence of a considerable stock of this species. However,
interviews with recreational and sport fishermen in September 2006 suggest that fish stocks
have declined in the last 10 years as a result of illegal fishing.
For its part, Gell (1997) determined the species composition and fishing effort in the sea grass
of the West Coast of the Quirimba Island, based on sampling of two gears (seine nets and
cage). In this context, Gell identified 195 species belonging to 52 families. The annual
production estimated in this study was 438 tonnes for seine net and 60 tonnes for the cages.
In the seine nets, the most represented families were Lethrinidae (31.5), Siganidadae (22%)
and Scaridae (11%). The main species include Lethrinus lentjan (Lethrinidae 23.9), Lethrinus
variegatus (Lethrinidae 8%), Siganus sutor (Siganidae 25.1%), Leptoscarus vaigiensis
(Scaridae, 8%), and Gerres oyena (Gerreidae, 3.5%) . And for cages the most abundant
species were Leptoscarus vaigiensis, Siganus sutor, Parupeneus barberinus, P. macronema
and Calotomos spinidens.
Whittington et al. (1996, 1997, 1998) used basically non-specialist volunteers in all surveys.
Globally, it is common to use non-specialist volunteers in various projects and conservation
guidance to conduct baseline studies and monitoring to both in marine and terrestrial habitats.
The advantage of using volunteers is to (a) provision of sufficient manpower to conduct
extensive survey, (b) savings in financial resources for the provision of voluntary labor, (c)
increased level of public awareness of environmental problems through of an active
participation in research projects, and (d) provision of simple and inexpensive research
techniques that can be continued at long term by using local skills and low financial
resources. However, despite this obvious advantage, the use of volunteers is often criticized
because the information collected is not safe as a result of both insufficient and inadequate
training and lack of consistency (precision and accuracy) of different observers. The
information on the commercial fish comes from small samples and data sampled at intervals
of short time periods (eg days, 1 week), which makes it impossible to extrapolate and make
inferences about the representativeness of the sample and seasonality, among other things.
In 2003, the QNP in partnership with WWF and the Department of Aquaculture of the
Fisheries Research Institute conducted a feasibility study on the culture of indigenous
28
shellfish at Ibo Island. This study concluded that 5 native species of oysters could be grown.
The recommended species for culture are Pinctata capensis and Sacrostrea cuccullata (Ibo
Mussemuco and Matemo) and the culture of crab (in Mussemuco) or lobster (the island of
Quirimba).
Moreover, in 2003 with the implementation of the Artisanal Fisheries Project for Northern
Nampula and Cabo Delgado (PPANNCD), coordinated by the Institute of Developing of
Small-Scale Fisheries (IDPPE), the Institute for Fisheries Research (IIP) introduced the
system of random sampling of catches, species composition and fishing effort in the province
of Cabo Delgado, including the zone of influence of QNP. However, for technical reasons
and organizational aspects, reports on these samples only began to be published / available
from 2006. The gear studied and considered in this study are: beach seine, spear, gillnet and
handline. These data were not always feasible for the management objectives of the QNP,
mainly due to a low intensity of sampling within the park, many of the fishing centers
excluded because it was a program to cover the entire province. The low sampling results in
poor precision and therefore low confidence for the application of the results in making
management decisions. Furthermore, although the methodology was appropriate, there were
many irregularities in the collection of field data associated with lack of intensive
surveillance to samplers. This may have reduced the quality of the results to guide the
management of the park. The reports of the IIP do not provide details on aspects of study
design and the factors considered in the selection of sampling points. The lack of
methodological details somewhat limits the interpretation of the results, particularly
variations observed between 2006 and 2007, the explanation is not given in the reports and
the methodology does not explain enough to infer the possible causes of change in the catch.
In September 2004, the Quirimbas National Park began a program of monitoring of marine
sanctuaries, with support of WWF Mozambique with the aim of providing scientific
information on the dynamics of fishery resources within the sanctuaries and their impact on
fishing in Matemo, Ibo and Quilalea Islands, over time. Fishing was prohibited in the
sanctuaries established by the QNP and after a year, based on sampling the catches of
traditional cages (locally called marema), Costa (2006) reported greater species diversity,
size, weight and catch per unit effort (CPUE ) sanctuaries in areas adjacent to the pressure of
fishing, outside the sanctuaries in Matemo and Ibo. Yet in Quilalea, species diversity and
CPUE were lower than in outside the sanctuary. The study also led to the identification of 53
species belonging to 17 families. Furthermore, the results of the monitoring program showed
that some species that apparently had disappeared, such as Sparisoma abilgaardi and Mugil
liza, are reappearing. The opening of sanctuaries for artisanal fisheries in 2007 and 2008
resulted in an increase in fish catches. This has encouraged the acceptance of the sanctuaries
by the fishing communities of the QNP (Gabriel et al. 2008). Therefore, with the shrines
were recovered populations / stocks declining in helping to conserve biodiversity while
simultaneously the needs of the communities where fish were met due to the increase in
CPUE after the opening of a haven for fishing.
In terms of methodology, the quality of the results of the monitoring program of shrines
could be improved by visual census of fish within and outside the sanctuaries, sampling an
equal number of stations (5-10 stations). At the centers of landing far would be sampled for
verification of the impact on fishing. Finally, the data collected were analyzed statistically to
evaluate the level of significance of differences found. Additionally, an assessment of
potential habitat for the fish should have been conducted before the establishment of
29
sanctuaries, to help explain possible differences in the parameters measured between inside
and outside the sanctuaries.
Later, in September 2005 Costa (2006) initiated a program of monitoring the movement of
two species subject to fishing, Cephalopoda argus (grouper) and Scarus ghobban (parrotfish)
by marking techniques. The program aims to quantify the movements of these species and
determine if the movements of fish may influence the function of the sanctuaries. The
activities of monitoring of movements were performed between 2006 and 2008.
The results of the first year of the program (2005-2006) showed that of 195 parrots marked,
84 were recaptured within the sanctuaries, but no grouper was recaptured. This result
suggests that the parrots perform short strokes and has a high fidelity to their place of
occupation. Failure recaptures grouper may indicate that all recaptures were fish, the grouper
has low fidelity to local occupancy and seasonal movements long held out the sanctuaries or
it may indicate that the proportion of individuals captured in the total population of grouper is
very low and therefore the probability of recapturing individuals marked is very low.
However, the ultimate explanation of movements requires long-term monitoring. The
uncertainty in explaining the results of monitoring of movement limits their application for
making management decisions.
Rousselot (2005), based on socio-economic characteristics of the fishing community of Isle
of Quirimba found that the specific composition of the trawl catch was identical to that found
by Gell (1997). Reported that the number of active boats in this fishery did not show great
variation (30 in 1997 and 32 in 2005). The author also stated that the estimated catch in 2005
was 190 tons, i. is 249 tons less than in the year 1997. For evolution of catches, of 105
inquired by Rousselot, 81% said that the catch decreased, which increased 3% and 16% said
they had no idea. And about 72% of respondents answered that the average length of the fish
decreased. These data, the author interpreted as the result of factors supposed to socioeconomic conditions, lack of funds for the maintenance and repair of vessels and acquire
better fishing nets (which also favors the use of harmful fishing gears and limits the mobility
of fishermen away from marine protected areas). The results of studies using the survey are
influenced by the sequential order of the questions under investigation and that the same
survey may give different results, depending on how the questions are arranged.
According to the census data of fishing undertaken by IDPPE (2007), the fleet fishing in the
coastal region and islands of Cabo Delgado province consisted of 4349 vessels, manned by
about 14,261 fishermen, distributed in about 197 centers fisheries (Table 9). The Quirimbas
National Park covers 5 fishing centers in Macomia, in Quissanga 10, 14 and 1 in the Ibo in
Malema, totaling 30 centers artisanal fishing in the sea (representing 23.1% of all fishing
centers in the province. The number of fishermen covered a total of just over 4.756
(composed of all of the fishers of the districts of Quissanga and Ibo and the fishermen of
Macomia and Pemba-Metuge), which corresponds to just under 30% of fishermen recorded
in the province. Regarding studies of IIP, the system used allow to define the state of
exploitation of resources. Moreover, the system was designed so that, in addition to statistical
data capture and fishing effort to the collection of biological data of the main species caught
as well as meteorological data and the data do give estimates of overall catches by charging
(extrapolation).
Table 9. Data from Artisanal Fisheries Census of Cabo Delgado Province.
30
Items/Year
Nr of fishermen
Nr of fishing gears
Nr of fishing boats
Nr of fishing centres
Source: IDPPE
1995
4,469
475
1,885
114
2002
15,875
4.359
4,124
141
2007
14,261
4,764
4,439
197
The evolution of the data shows that although the number of fishermen has decreased
between 2002 and 2007, the number of fishing gear, boats and fishing centers increased
(Table 9).
The objective of reproducing make effective management and conservation of fishery
resources in the QNP, Loureiro (2007) set up a monitoring system for collecting statistical
data for management of fishery resources, that include species and size composition, catch
and fishing effort, based on the sampling scheme designed by the Institute for Fisheries
Research (IIP). This work began with a process of stratification, which was the
characterization of the fishing centers, quantification of the necessary technical and
identification of sites for setting the sampling and registration of fishermen, gear and fishing
vessels. Thus, for the study of artisanal fisheries in QNP were selected 10 stratum or zones
for the collection of data of which 4 are located in the district of Ibo, 3 and 3 in Quissanga in
Macomia. With this sample at least 65% of the total fishing centers existing around the park
were covered (Loureiro 2007). However, some fishing centers located on the mainland and
the islands uninhabitable for human populations (Fion and Rolas) were not included in the
sample because of access limitations. However, along with better sample coverage, data from
Loureiro (2007) were collected by samplers under constant supervision, thus ensuring a better
quality of data. Therefore, the data from the QNP, i.e. Loureiro (2007) are potentially more
reliable to guide management decisions that the data obtained by the IIP. A limitation of the
monitoring program of fish catches in the QNP is that until the date of preparing this study
only 2007 data were available, making it impossible to evaluate the consistency of the data
produced over time.
Moreover, in 2006 and 2007, IIP has made the monitoring of catches and fishing effort in
three fishing centers within the QNP particular Quissanga_Quissanga Beach, Ibo_Sede and
Quirimba_Quiuandala.
31
Table 10. Total Catch (Tons) estimated in 3 distrits of Quirimbas National Park, at 2006 and 2007
Fishing arts
Districts
MACOMIA
Beach
nets
Harpoon
seine
Superficial
gillnet
QUISSANGA
IBO
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
910,88
611
172,41
278
-
82
85,08
-
5,4
634,69
23
16,2
368
-
108
205,24
27
47,94
41
-
151
521,16
312
9,09
406
-
22
2.357,05
973
251,04
1093
-
363
-
Deep gillnet
Handline
Total
Source: IIP, 2006, 2007
In Table 10, it appears clearly that the catches declined dramatically from 2006 to 2007 in the
district of Macomia and substantially increase the district Quissanga. This apparent
discrepancy must be examined with caution, because, the oscillation may not be only
associated with a possible real increase in fish production, but above all the difficulty in
covering the system, variations in the process of collecting and analyzing data. Table 11
shows that in 2007 for gill nets and surface handline fishing effort were undertaken in
Quissanga more than 5 times higher than in Macomia. Therefore, this difference in the trend
of total catch and the various gears is probably a reflection of differences between the
districts on the trend of fishing effort. Other important factors that could help substantiate the
oscillations recorded include the study of fishing patterns and dynamics of environmental
conditions.
As shown in Table 11, the highest catches were estimated by the Ministry of Fisheries, the
district Quissanga. According to Loureiro 2007, art that is more effort in all districts is towed
to the beach, and Macomia the district with the highest effort of art (7.286 active gear). The
beach seine was also the art with highest yield (CPUE) except the island of Igbo, which has a
yield of 21 kg / rede.dia. Comparing estimates Loureiro (2007) with the results published by
the Ministry of Fisheries, we can observe large differences, where the biggest stories of
Loureiro, especially in Quissanga and Macomia (except handline in Macomia). The large
differences between Loureiro (2007) and IIP (2007) are explained by sampling differences in
coverage and quality of supervision of samplers. For example, to hand line the IIP reports an
effort of 16,963 active gear in Quissanga, which suggests a minimum of 46 days of active
gear, samplers assumed what IIP worked 365 days a year, which does not seem realistic and
into account the low sample coverage in the study of IIP. Moreover Loureiro (2007)
32
indicates, for the same period, active gear for 3110 in a year, i.e. an estimated average of 9
days of active gear, which is possible given the broad spatial coverage of sampling. These
apparent irregularities in the recording of data in the IIP and Quissanga Macomia may be the
cause of large differences in the fishing evaluated. However, the results of two studies do not
show large differences in Igbo. It has been stated before that the reports do not indicate the
IIP methodological details (eg sampling rate, frequency of observations, etc..), So it is
believed some of the differences in the results, particularly Quissanga, may be associated
with methodological.
Table 11. Catch, effort and CPUE of the artisanal fisheries studies reported by IIP, Ministry of Fisheries (MP) and Loureiro
(L).
Fishing
gears
Beach
Seine
nets
Superfici
al gillnet
Handline
DISTRITS
Macomia
IIP
L.
Catch(tons)
611
239
Effort(
active 5056 7286
nets)
CPUE
121
28
(Kg/net.day)
Catch (tons)
23
80
Effort
(active 546
2987
nets)
CPUE
42
26
(Kg/net.day)
Catch(tons)
312
49
Effort
(active 3012 7162
nets)
CPUE
103
7
(Kg/net.day)
Items
Total Catch
946
368
MP
195
473
668
Quissanga
IIP
L.
278
132
2737
3193
102
35
368
4974
50
3522
74
15
406
16963
26
3110
24
11
1052
208
MP
172
16
9
197
Ibo
IIP
82
2450
L..
114
5740
34
21
108
1635
157
2685
66
54
22
3988
41
3947
6
11
212
312
MP
3
2
4
9
Loureiro (2007) , estimated the prodution of 1241 tons of diverse fish, and Macomia distrit
accounted for the highest contribuition to the total catch with 505 tons (43% of total catch),
followed by Ibo distrit with 431 tons (correspndent to 36% of catch) and finally the
Quissanga distrit with 250 tons (correponding 21% of total catch).
-The most caught species include Mugil cephalus (mullet flat head), Lutjanus fulviflama
(Porgy cartridge), Siganus sutor (Coelho shoemaker), Leptoscarus vaigiensis (thief spotted),
Lethrinus mahsena (thief Masena) Hemirhanphus far (half stained needle) Pterocaesio tile
(banded fusiler), Lethrinus variegatus (thief mottled) and Trachinotus blochii (southern
pompano).
- Of the cartilaginous fish is to emphasize the capture of shark Carcharinus leuca (porbeagle
bulls), Loxodon macrorhinus (porbeagle acute), Hemipristis elongatus (weasel sharks),
Shyrna zygaena (smooth hammerhead shark) and rays Himantura gerrardi (uge thorny tail),
Himantura uarnak (Bura comb), Taeniura lyma (Myocastor mottled) and Pteromylaeus
bovinus (Myocastor veal).
33
- Of the marine invertebrates was higher capture Pueruleus angulatus (banded whip lobster),
Octopus vulgaris (common octopus), Actinopyga achinites (deep water cucumber), Acethes
erythraeus (sergestid shrimps) and Sepia sps (cuttlefish).
- The greatest diversity was recorded in the families Serranidae (groupers, 33 species),
Carangidae (Jacks, 27 especies) Lutjanidae (Snappers, 26 esp) Haemulidae (Grunts, sweetlips
and Scaridae (parrotfish, both 25 species each), Lethrinidae (LEmperors,pig face breams, 16
species), Mullidae (Goatfishes, 15 especies), Sparidae ( Hottwntots) and Acanthuridae
(Surgeons, both 12 species) there are other families with contributions of less than 11 species
of the total catch.
In the seine nets, Loureiro showed even greater presence of herbivores and Leptoscarus
vaigiensis Siganus Sutor, and in fewer quantities are observed other species of fish from
stone, rocky and coral habitats. Comparing the volumes of catches of seine net gears, it is
observed that in the last years the volumes estimated by IIP at Ibo district (Quirimba and Ibo
islands, 2007) is significantly lower (-356 tons) than the capture registered 10 years before at
Quirimba Island by Gell( 1997).
As for gill net, there was greater capture of coastal pelagic fish and greater emphasis on the
species of coastal estuaries (Mugil cephalus) and typical coastal islands (Hemirhamphus far).
In hand line, there was greater abundance of species belonging to the family Lethrinidae and
Lutjanidae. The most abundant species in this gear is Lethrinus mashena, believed to be the
most abundant in the area, because it had been observed in relatively large quantities in the
fence traps, seine nets.
In the fence traps, although it is not reflected in tabela9, the most abundant species are of
different origin, since herbivores on reefs and rocks (Acanthurus sp. and Lethrinus sp),
herbivores (Acanthurus and Leptoscarus), sandy estuarine (Acanthopargus and Argyrops)
and offshore (Acanthocybium).
For the study of Gell (2007), families frequently caught were Lethrinidae, Siganidae and
Scaridae, while the study of the IIP, the catches were dominated by families Caesionidae
Siganidae. This difference can be explained by the use of different methodological
approaches for collection, processing and analysis of data between the two studies. Looking
at the specific composition of the four studies including Gell (1997), Rousselout (2005), IIP
(2006) and Loureiro (2007), there is a similarity of about 60% over the first three, and one
difference between them and the study de Loureiro (2007), which may be reassessed with
increased sample size in the study of Loureiro
According to the IIP, the estimated annual production in 2008 was just over 858 tonnes of
fish throughout the QNP (corresponding to 24% of total annual production in the provinces),
mainly caught by beach seine.
In 2008, Vita aiming to (i) provide reliable data on catches and fishing effort, (ii) establish a
viable report on the exploration and migration patterns of marine resources, and (iii)
combined with other programs (and SOCMON and MOMS) to analyze the patterns of
exploitation of fishery resources by populations within parks (QNP and Bazaruto), developed
34
a database using the Wildlife 1.3 computer system, having as beneficiaries park manegers,
government, WWF and local communities.
•
To develop this database the author sampled the following gears harpoon, trap fence,
hand line and gill net and quinia. To develop the database Vita used catch samples
from harpoon,, seine net, basket traps, handline, gill nets and quinia gears. The total
catch registered was about 1,246 tons of diverse fisheries resources, with Darumba
stratum, Macomia distrit having the highest catch 241 tons caught with seine
nets(135,140 active gears).
•
The fishing gear accounted for the highest effort was seine net(484,156 gears), with
fish being the most recurso caught in the catches;
•
Tha lowest total catches were recorded at Ibo and Tandanhangue strata, respectively
Ibo and Quissanga distrits, using the following fishing gears harpoon, handline and
and hand collection.
3.2.4 Sea Turtles, dugong, whale and shark
Existing studies and available on marine mammals in the QNP include the work of Hughes
(1971), Whittington et al (1997, 1998), Louro et al. 2006, Costa (2007), Anadarko (2008) and
Seabird Exploration (2009).
Much of the information on the existence of dugongs in the Quirimbas is anecdotal despite
Guissamulo (2004) reported the occurrence of dugongs in the islands of Macaloe, Rolas and
Matemo and kill.
Hughes (1971) and Whittington et al (1997, 1998), reported important areas for nesting of 3
species of sea turtles, both on the shores of continents and on islands.
Louro et al (2006) conducted a survey on the state of knowledge and conservation of marine
turtles in Mozambique, based on a review of published and available bibliography. In this
study, he affirmed that all 5 species existing in the Indian Ocean, including Caretta caretta,
Chelonia mydas, Dermochelys coriacea, Eretmochelys imbricata and Lepidochelys olivacea)
also occur along the coast of Mozambique Coast, including the region of QNP.
Louro et. al. (2006) affirmed also that the populations of marine turtles in Mozambique are
facing a continuous decline, which will persist if they are not implemented management
measures and conservation, such as legislation, education and public awareness.
On the other hand, Costa (2007) identified in the Quirimbas National Park, 13 sites with
suitable conditions for nesting. Reported the occurrence of 3 species (Chelonia mydas,
Lepidochelys olivacea and Eretmochelys imbricata) in 7 of the 11 islands that are part of the
QNP including Ibo, Matemo, Sencar, Quilalea, Mefunvo and Quisiva. The green turtle
(Chelonia mydas) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) are more abundant on the island
of Ibo while a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) tends to occur abundantly in the
islands and Quilala Sencar.
According to this study, nesting occurs from October to January and spawning ends in April.
The best time to observe sea turtles in the QNP is from May to September.
35
In 2007, CSA International, Inc. made an aerial census of marine mammals and turtles
covering Block Grant of the Rovuma and QNP, culminating with the sighting of humpback
dolphins and 114 individuals of sea turtles not identified to specific level.
Anadarko (2008), based on visual observation and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM),
recorded 165 detections (67 visual and 98 MAP) comprising 7 species positively identified.
Marine mammals observed in decreasing frequency, include fiadeiro Dolphin (Stenella
longirotris), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops trunactus) and golfinfo of Risso's (Grampus
griseus) and Peponocephala electra whales, Globicephala nacrorhynchuse and Physeter
mcrocephalus.
In 2009, Seabird Exploration has, in deep water, observations of marine mammals and
showed 36 animals (32 for visual observations and Passive Acoustic Monitoring 4), including
5 species positively identified. Mammals observed in descending frequency were spinner
dolphin (Stenella longirotris), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops trunactus), dolphin head melon
(Poponocephala electra), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae). There were no dugongs and sea turtles during the search.
Anadarko (2008) and Guissamulo (2009) based on visual observation and Passive Acoustic
Monitoring (PAM) identified 7 species of marine mammals, including dolphins and whales. 5
other species of dolphins and 5 species of whales have not been confirmed but the likelihood
of its occurrence in QNP area is high (Table 12).
Table 12. Species of dolphins and whales recorded at Quirimbas National Prak and all around
Common names
Species
Occurrence
Spinner dolphin
Long_snouted
sppinner
dolphin
Risso’s dolphin
Indian Humpback dolphin
Humpback whale
Stenella longirotris
Tursiopsis truncatus
Confirmed
Confirmed
Period
residency
Over a year
Over a year
Grampus griseus
Sousa plúmbea
Megaptera
novaeangliae
Physeter
macrocephalus
Globicephala
macrorhynchus
Delphinus delphis
Stenella attenuata
Stenella coeruleoalba
Steno bredanensis
Peponocephala
electra
Balaenoptera
acutorostrata
Kogia breviceps
Mesoplodon
densirostris
Pseudorca crassidens
Ziphius cavirostris
Confirmed
Confirmed
Confirmed
Over a year
Over a year
Over a year
Confirmed
Over a year
Confirmed
Over a year
Most probable
Most probable
Most probable
Most probable
Most probable
Unknown
Over a year
Over a year
Over a year
Over a year
Most probable
Most probable
Most probable
Seazonal (June to
November)
Over a year
Over a year
Most probable
Most probable
Over a year
Over a year
Sperm whale
Shor finned pillot whale
Dolphin
Spotted dolphin
Striped dolphin
Rough-toothed-dolphin
Melon-headed-whale
Minke whale
Pygmy-Sperm Whale
Balainville’s Beaked Whale
Fale killer whale
Cuvier’s Beaked whale
of
36
3.2.5 Monitoring Programs
a) Monitoring Program Oriented Management (MOMS)
In order to monitor the development of special species, illegal activities, etc. The QNP has
been developing since 2006 a monitoring system-oriented management.
According to available information, illegal activities were high in 2006, particularly the
island of Igbo, where 22 people were involved in illegal fishing. Were apprehended 2
networks and 8 boats. And the observation of special species, it should be noted that were
observed 115 turtles and whale 1.
In 2007, illegal activity significantly reduced, having been confiscated 1 net and 2 vessels and
also were observed 17 sea turtles.
The main limitation of MOMS in marine component was the weak of technical capacity in
data collection, which is reflected in the bad registration forms in the yellow book and fish
form. This was mainly due to an insufficient number of technicians for monitoring and
oversight of the process of filling the yellow book.
b) Monitoring the Impact of Marine Sanctuary
The monitoring of sanctuaries began in 2004 and is made by QNP as is discussed in Section
3.2.3. However, the observations made in 2007 and 2008 show a positive impact of the
sanctuaries in species diversity and the quality of fish caught by artisanal fishermen.
However, it was strange to note contrary results in the sanctuary of Quilalea Existing results
can be considered as preliminary, particularly taking into account the variations observed in
the catch of artisanal fisheries as discussed in section 3.2.3. Consequently, it is desirable that
the observations are continued for a longer time to confirm the impact of the sanctuaries.
Additionally, studies of the sanctuaries do not show the characteristics of habitats both within
and outside the shrines, which could be partly the cause of variation of these parameters
between inside and outside the sanctuaries.
c) Monitoring Fish Catches
The monitoring of artisanal fisheries in the QNP is performed by several specialized
agencies, including the IIP, the Ministry of Fisheries and by the QNP. Detailed results of the
monitoring work of those institutions were discussed in Section 3.2.3. What can you conclude
from these is that the monitoring of catches of fishing is still weak and results are variable
and are not, but easy to recognize the true causes of variation due to differences in procedures
ranging from human expertise, access the centers of fishing, sampling rate, duration and
frequency of observations, among others.
d) Monitoring of Sea Turtles
37
The program began in 2006 and is the capture and tagging sea turtles with metallic devices
("tags"). 16 have been marked turtles to monitor their migration movements and details of the
growth, reproduction, reproductive patterns and population size. Preliminary results indicate
migrations of turtles to Reunion Island and Mayotte (Gabriel et al. 2008). But the program
still has documented results that can guide management decisions and further public
awareness and surveillance efforts for the conservation of sea turtles. In addition to marking,
the program includes the monitoring of nesting sites. A limitation of this program in the QNP
is insufficient number of technicians to the constant monitoring of the turtles in all places of
occurrence of turtles identified by Costa (2007).
3.2.6 Conservation status and threats for marine life
The Quirimbas Archipelago is a chain of 28 islands, housing complex habitats capable of
supporting, among others, some species considered to be internationally protected,
vulnerable, endangered / critically endangered and / or endangered species such as corals, sea
turtles, dugongs , dolphins and some species of whales, some species of sharks and mollusks.
Studies conducted by the Frontier Mozambique from 1996 to 1998, found the reefs in good
condition, well developed and supporting diverse biota. At that time, the islands Rolas,
Quirimbas, Quilaluia, Mefunvo, Quisiva and Quipaco showed some evidence of disturbance
by anchors, while the reef Quipaco suffered from sedimentation and input of fresh water.
In the Quirimbas Archipelago, were listed about 160 species of corals. Within the Red List of
IUCN, there are the sea turtles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata and Lepidichelys
olivacea), a dolphin (Turpiops truncatus) and the Dugong (Dugong dugon), anecdotally
reported within the QNP. Were also recorded 140 species of molluscs, including some with
the status of threatened species as Charonia tritonis, Cypraecassis rufa, Cassis cornuta and
Tridacna squamosa.
According to Whittington et al. (1997, 1998), the resources for food had become available in
all the islands studied, varying in abundance according to the level of local pressure. But even
then it was observed that the resources for commercial purposes, began to make threats and,
to some extent exhausted, example of this is to quote the holothurians and the gastropods
Lambis lambis, Strombus mutabilis, Cypraea tigris and Pinna sp. These resources were
already heavily exploited for sale to Tanzanians and some local merchants. As for corals, the
most negative human impact on these has been the harpoon, in the artisanal fisheries and
mainly due to excessive anchoring on the coral substrate. Other causes that have created high
destruction of coral reefs are bleaching and sedimentation in estuaries.
Sea turtles are endangered mainly due to illegal trade especially the green turtles. Other
causes of threats recorded were, coastal erosion, tourism that destroys the nests of the turtles,
and one example of this is the island of Matemo.
Regarding to reef fish, Whittington et al (1997,1998) states that the coral reefs of the islands
of Matemo, Sencar, Quisiva are in better condition, compared to other reefs already studied
and which is catch larger fish trade. The coral islands of Rolas and Quisiva need more
attention. For fisheries, the gear that critically one must have more attention is the beach
38
seine, because in every place where it was prevalent, there was plenty of fish with very small
size, the case of Quirimba and Quissanga.
Other features that deserve more attention are marine invertebrates, which catch reaches up to
10 kg or more per person in a tidal wave empty. Among the features included apparently
depleted sea cucumbers, octopus, mussels of the genus Anadara spp Pinna spp, and Barbatia
spp Trachycardium spp and gastropods such as Cypraea spp, Conus spp, Lambis spp
Cypraecassis spp, Cassis cornuta, Phalium spp, Tonna sp, Oliva sp, Engina mendicaria,
Terebra spp, Pleuroploca sp. and Chicoreus spp.
3.2.7 Limitations of knowledge about marine fauna
Based on the available information on marine biodiversity in the Quirimbas National Park is
clear that the knowledge of the QNP is just beginning, especially with regard to:
a) The knowledge of the species diversity of corals is still incipient. There is not yet a full
checklist of species of corals and little is known about the factors underlying its occurrence.
Knowledge of habitat types and ecological factors responsible for the distribution and
abundance would facilitate their management. In this context, urges the need to conduct
training of personnel in the fields of taxonomy, biology and ecology;
b) There are not yet biological studies on the Banco de S. Lázaro. The existence of this
information would allow lead to better management of the bank especially in terms of
recreational and sport fishing;
c) Actually there is not a systematic knowledge about the patterns of exploitation of marine
invertebrates (including the trade of protected species); The existence of this information
could contribute to the development of management measures in some important intertidal
and sublitoral areas;
d) Knowledge about the real impact of marine sanctuaries is also incipient. It is necessary to
undertake further studies to determine whether the declared marine sanctuaries act as nursery
areas for breeding or feeding areas or as a shelter or as a source of juveniles to the adjacent
fishing grounds;
e) There are not yet studies on the impact of tourism (diving, anchoring of boats and recreational and sport fishing) on coral reefs.
39
4. Terrestrial Component
4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation and Flora
4.1.1 Phytogeography
The eastern area of Cabo Delgado is phytogeographically under the Inhambane Zanzibar
Coastal Mosaic (IZCM) (White, 1983). The mosaic extends from the Rovuma river (in the
north) to Limpopo (in the south), in a belt form through the coastal area being more
constricted in the central part of Mozambique (Figure 13). In Cabo Delgado, the IZCM
occupies, in a irregular form, the terrestrial extension from the coast to the mountains in the
interior. A recent study undertaken by Burgess and Clark (2000), which describes the
biological diversity of the ecoregion, suggests division of the ecoregion into two subzones,
namely, the Swahelian-Maputaland Transition Zone (SMTZ) and the Swahelian Regional
Centre of Endemism (SRCE). The Quirimbas National Parque (QNP) is located in the latter
zone.
Figure 13. The Inhambane Zanzibar Coastal Mosaic setting according to White (1983), showing the Swahelian Regional
Centre of Endemism – SRCE (XIIIa) (source: Burguess & Clark 2000).
4.1.2 Vegetation
The vegetation of the country has widely been described based on the Wild and Barbosa
(1967) classification system. This system is based on floristic composition attributes
considered appropriate for conservation purposes. The information on vegetation of the QNP
is scarce due to the fact that the area has not been sufficiently explored. A recent study on the
vegetation in the QNP (commissioned by the park) identified six (06) terrestrial vegetation
types (Bandeira et al., 2008) (Figure 14).
40
Figure 14. The vegetation types in the Quirimbas National Park (Bandeira et al., 2008).
According to the study, the distribution of the different vegetation types in the park follow
altitudinal gradient which varies from the coast to the interior. From the coast to the interior,
in a sequential order, mangroves are followed by coastal thicket, Acacia-grassland mosaic,
miombo woodlands, mixed miombo, and miombo velloziace in the iselbergs (Bandeira et al.,
2008). The area covered by each vegetation type in the park is shown in the Table 13.
According to this information, the miombo woodland and the Acacia – grassland mosaics are
the most widespread and the coastal thicket, the smallest unity.
Table 13. The area covered by the different types of vegetation in the QNP.
Vegetation types
Mangrove
Coastal thicket
Woodland mosaic
Miombo woodland
Acacia – grassland mosaics
Miombo-Velloziacea
Other
Total
Source: Bandeira et al. (2008)
Area covered
(Km2)
239,4
52,4
1709,4
3275,1
2655,7
67,3
19,1
8018,4
Perce
ntage
(%)
2,99
0,65
21,32
40,84
33,12
0,84
0,24
100,0
41
The vegetation types defined by Bandeira et al.(2008) are very broad, probably as an artfact
of the sampling strategy adopted for the field and / or because of use of small number of
sampling points for the classification of the vegetation. The report does not give any
information regarding the distribution of sampling points. Eventually, the proportional
distribution of sampling points per vegetation type could have resulted on a better data
collection and a better classification and description of the different vegetation unities
identified in the satelite imagery.
Furthermore, the above mentioned study does not show the factors which clearly determine
the occorence and/or espatial distribution of the different vegetation types identified. The
association of vegetation type and the determining factors for their occurrence in a given
settings is importnat for management purposes. Knowing the factors, it is possible to forecast
the impacts of a proposed utilization of a given vegetation type from which appropriate
mitigation measures can be suggested. Thus, the identification of the vegetation types, per se,
is not enough information for management purposes.
A previous description of the vegetation by Burguess et al. (s/d) identified, in the same area,
ten (10) different vegetation types namely, mangrove, coastal thicket, riverine forest, forest
on mountains (inselbergs), miombo woodlands, Acacia woodlands, Grasslands(damboos),
bamboo woodland, palm veld and succullent vegetation on mountais. This classification (by
Burgess et al., (s/d)) is more detailed and indedify unities of vegetation easily recognisable in
the field, being therefore, more appropriate for management purposes of a conservation area.
Despite that the study by Burgess et al. (s/d) does not include the spatial distribution of the
different vegetation types, it considers altitude and soil moisture as the determinant local
factors for the occurrence of the vegetation. According to the authors, the vegetation follows
a regional trend of distribution, extending from the park to the interior (e.g. miombo) and to
the northern surroundings (e.g. coastal forests). The trends in occurrence and distribution of
the vegetation types (the coastal forests, in particular), in Cabo Delgado, and specifically in
the QNP, has been supported by recent botanical surveys in the neighbourhoods of the park
(e.g. União Europeia, 2000; Impacto, 2007; Timberlake, 2009).
In the QNP, the riverine forest along the drainage channels (including rivers and streams) and
the forests on the mountain bases are (or nearly) always evergreen during the dry season of
the year (Burgess et al., s/d). The riverine forests along the edges of permant waters are
composed of evergreen trees, dense shrub stratum and sparsely distributed grass stratum. The
dominat tree species incluede Khaya nyasica, Albizia gummifera, Adansonia digitata,
Sterculia appendiculata, Bombax rhodognaphalon, Pteliopsis myrtifolia, Cordyla africana
among others. Some of the accompaning species include Margaritaria discoidea,
Cleistochlamys kirkii, Vitex payos. The common herbaceous species are Achyranthes aspera,
Panicum maximum, Cucumis rehmannii and Corchorus trilocularis. The forests on
mountains occur on altitudes above 300m. The tallest trees on this vegetation type can reach
about 8 to 12 meters. The common species include Brachystegia spp., among Millettia
stuhlmannii, Annona senegalensis, Afzelia quanzensis and Combretum zeyheri species.
On drier areas, away from superficial water tables and water courses, the vegetation changes
according to the edaphic conditions, moisture and perturbation effects. Included in these areas
are vegtation types such as bamboo woodlands, miombo woodlands, coastal thickets and
Acacia woodlands. The bamboo woodlands sparsely distributed are dominated by
Oxytenanthera abyssinica. The accompaning species include Terminalia sericea, T.
42
stenostachya, Millettia spp., Hymenocardia ulmoides, Lonchocarpus bussei, among others,
associated or not with other species such as Baphia sp., Acacia nigrescens, Hugonia sp.,
Combretum spp., and Xeroderris stuhlmannii. On sanddy and brown dark clayey soils occur,
in a sparse manner, species of Albizia harvey, Acacia nigrescens, Acacia polyacantha,
Vangueria spp and Strychnos sp..
The miombo woodland in the QNP is semi-deciduous during the whole dry season being
dominated by species of Brachystegia spp. and Julbernardia globiflora. Variations in the
species composition do occur at the local level, being justified mainly by diference in
moisture content. In humid areas the miombo woodland is more closed with two strata being
the arboreal composed of trees which can reach 20 metres of height and more than 20 cm of
diameter at breast height (dbh) (Bandeira et al., 2008). The grass estatum is dominated by
grass which can reach about 2 meters of height along valleys. The common trees include
Millettia stuhlmannii, M. bussei, Terminalia spp., Pteliopsis myrtifolia, Combretum spp.,
Dalbergia melanoxylon, Diplorhynchus condylocarpon, Afzelia quanzensis, Pterocarpus
angolensis, Cordyla africana among others. As the soil moisture content reduces, the
miombo woodlands tends to be less dense and poorer in terms of species composition. The
grass stratum is much more abundant and dominated by grass species such as Heteropogon
contortus, Heteropogon melanocarpus, Urochloa mosambicensis, Digitaria eriantha, among
others.
The dense miombo woodlands are, here and there, interspaced with patches of deciduous
forests composed of trees whose crowns (sometimes) overlap including or not the presence of
herbaceous stratum dominated by grass. In the cases where the stratum is present, it is poor.
The factors which determine the occurrence of the patches of deciduous forests in the park
are not yet known. However, this patches sparsely distributed in the middle of the woodland
have been designated as ‘coastal forests’ by Burgess et al. (s/d). The fact that these patches
are small and occur in a discrete manner within miombo woodland they have escaped the
attention from most researchers (e.g. Bandeira et al., 2008), the reason why they have never
been adequately studied and clearly mapped. In the neighboring Tanzania, however, the
coastal forests are home of plant endemics, important habitat for birds, small mammals,
reptiles and amphibians, despite the high fragmentation tendency of the ecosystem (Burguess
et al., s/d). It is, therefore, urgent to assess the biodiversity status of the coastal forests in the
park as well as its vulnerability to fragmentation.
The valleys and depressions with alluvial soils are covered with damboos (grasslands) and
palm velds. These areas are colonized by abundant grass startum dominated by grass species
and few dispersed trees and/or shrubs. The damboos occur as seasonally flooded or inundated
grassland areas in the park. The edges of these areas are dominated by characteristic
vegetation type of palm veld with Hyphaene sp., Digitaria sp., Corchorus trilocularis, etc..
On inundated areas occur species such as Typha sp., Cyperus spp., Phagmites autralis on
darker soils (mananga). This habitat type, in other parts of Eastern Africa, does not include
rare species of plant and animal life, however, high diversity of common species of big
mammals such as elephants (Burguess et al., s/d).
On exposed mountains areas (inselbergs), a typical flora composed of succulent species does
occur. This flora exhibits as, fundamental characteristics, adaptation to survive over extreme
temperatures, variations on water availability, tolerance to desiccation on high altitudes, etc..
The common species incluede Xerophyta retinotii, Vellozia sp., and Aloe spp. (Bandeira et
al., 2008).
43
4.1.3 Flora
According to White (1983), the IZCM has a high diversity of plant species estimated to be
more than 3000 species, including more than 100 endemic. Some endemic genera include
Stulhmania, Hymenaena and Bivinia. The Coastal forests of Eastern Africa , alone, contribute
with more than 554 endemic plant species (Burgess et al., 2000). The knowledge about the
flora of the QNP is still incipient, the fact justified by scacity of detailed botanical surveys.
On a recent study undertaken in the park by Bandeira et al., (2008) a total of 540 plant
species were identified among trees, shrubs, herbs, lianas, succulent and palms (Figure 15).
4% 2%1%
18%
38%
Herbaceas
Arvores
Arbustos
Lianas
Suculentas
Palmeiras
37%
Figure 15. The diversity of habitus among terrestrial plants of the QNP.
The study shows that the park has higher number of herbs (38%), followed by trees (37%).
The palms are the least represented group of plants with about 0.5% of the total number of
species identified.
The families of Fabaceae, Poaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Asteraceae exhibit the highest number
of species in the park (Table 14). The diversity of families in the flora of the park conforms
with the findings by União Europeia (2000) for the rest of the Cabo Delgado province. União
Europeia (2000) found higher diversity of species in the families Fabaceae, Euphorbiacea and
Asteraceae. The high diversity in the number of grass (Poaceae) species in the park is a great
natural contribution for the occurrence of wildlife, specifically the grazers.
Table 14. Number of plant species per families identified in the QNP (Bandeira et al., 2008).
44
Family
Fabaceae
Poaceace
Euphorbiaceae
Asteraceae
Thymelaceae
Malvaceae
Combretaceae
Lamiaceae
Acanthaceae
Apocynaceae
Capparaceae
Anacardiaceae
Cyperaceae
Ebenaceae
Vitaceae
Convolvulaceae
Annonaceae
Bignoniaceae
Meliaceae
Moraceae
Rubiaceae
Vellozaceae
Aloaceae
Commelinaceae
Ochnaceae
Olacaceae
Rutaceae
Asclepiadaceae
Connaraceae
Loganiaceae
Number of species
105
49
33
30
18
17
15
14
12
12
12
11
9
9
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
According to Bandeira et al.(2008), the vegetation on mountains and mixed woodlands are
the highly diverse ecosystems in terms of plant species (Table 15) but knowledge about the
ecology of these vegetation types is rare.
Table 15. Number and endemism among plant species per vegetation type in the QNP
Vegetation type
Number of species
Coastal thicket
38
Acacia-Grassland mosaic 104
Mixed woodland
183
Miombo woodland
59
Miombo –Villoziacea
77
Source: Adapted from Bandeira et al. (2008)
Number of endemic or quasiendemic species
2
6
5
7
Studies undertaken on similar ecosystems elsewhere in eastern Africa confirm these high
endemism levels (Burgess et al., s/d). In Cabo Delgado, a plant survey conducted recently in
45
the neighborhoods (northern side) of the park confirms this result. According to the findings,
about 10 to 20 plant species identified in the area are new records for Mozambique and 2 to 5
species are new to science (Timberlake, 2008). Based on the available data and recent records
in the region, the author indicates that there are more than 30 plant species considered new
records for Mozambique or the Flora Zambesiaca area confined to different vegetation types
in Cabo Delgado. A total of 32 plant species have been listed in two studies undertaken
independently within and in the neighborhoods of the park. The study undertaken by
Bandeira et al. (2008) in the park lists 17 plant species considered important for conservation.
Earlier study undertaken by SEED (2003) in the north of the park listed 15 plant species
among endemics collected previously in the study area, endemic species which occur in the
study area and vulnerable species as per IUCN categories. This indicates that these species
may well occur in the park. Therefore, more detailed studies on the different types of
vegetation in the park should be a priority if conservation is to be made based on sound
scientific evidence about the real value of the ecosystems.
4.1.4 Gaps on the knowledge
Based on the information gathered on the plant biodiversity of the Quirimbas National Park,
it is more than evident that the knowledge about the park is rather limited, mainly that
concerned with:
1. The spatial extension (coverage) and classification of the vegetation types in the park do
not provide sufficient detailed information for the purpose of management. Detailed
vegetation types and the determinant ecological factors for their spatial distribution in the
park are instrumental for implementation of the management objectives of the park.
2. There is no comprehensive data about the dynamics and conservation status of each
vegetation type identified in the park. This information is, specifically, more relevant for the
mountain vegetation (inselbergs), mixed woodlands, coastal forests and dambos. Emphasis
should be given in relation to the relevance and magnitude of the factors and agents (direct
and indirect) which contribute for ecosystem fragmentation.
3. The knowledge about the diversity of different vegetation types is still incipient. There are
no complete listings of the diversity of species important for conservation as well as their
distribution per vegetation type. The availability of this information would direct
conservation efforts to where it is desperately needed saving technical efforts and money.
4. There are no studies about the phenological behavior of the main species used by the game
as pasture, in the park. The availability of this information would contribute for a better
management of the pasture available in the park per season in a year.
4.1.4 Threats to conservation of terrestrial flora
The vegetation at QNP faces threads which may lead to ecosystem fragmentation and/or
changes/alteration of its natural ecological conditions and, thence, reduction of the local
biodiversity. Various natural and/or anthropogenic factors may contribute to this phenomena.
The magnitude and dimension of the anthropogenic factors need to be given much more
46
attention as their impacts can hardly be contained through the natural resilience capacity of
the ecosystems. Thus, the relevant sources of thread for the park include:
Exploitation of timber products from the forests
The local communities explore a diversity of products and commodities from the forest.
These products include the timber and non-timber forest products. In spite of the lack of
accurate data about the quantities of the products, the species explored, the vegetation used as
source of the products, a preliminary study undertaken recently in the park confirms the
exploitation of timber products. Poles and plywood explored for selling and construction
purposes are, among other products, those whose exploitation may have tremendous impacts
to the conservation of the vegetation in the park (Araman 2006).
On the other hand, however, the technical progress report for 2008, reports the apprehension
of different quantities of logs and poles in the Districts of Ancuabe, Meluco and Quissanga
apparently from illegal exploitation. The report states that the park used administrative
measures to solve the situation. Should administrative measures help to contain the increased
tendency of illegal exploitation of forestry products? In fact, the illegal exploitation of
forestry products could, in a short, medium and long run impact negatively on the overall
plans and objectives of conservation of the ecosystem in the park.
Forest encroachment for agriculture and urbanization
The rural communities in Mozambique have, from immemorial times, been characterized as
nomadic due to factors such as natural disasters, irregular distribution of means for
productions and reduced access to technological development. The slush and burn agriculture
is one of the secular activities of the local communities. The practice of agriculture
incorporates the utilization of fire as well as shifting cultivation to allow the soil to replenish
its fertility. The slush and burn agriculture requires the acquisition of new areas for
agriculture at a cost of conservation of natural ecosystems.
Despite that slush and burn agriculture is a common practice in the park there is no data on
the deforestation rate of intact vegetation, the types of vegetation affected, neither the
estimate of the minimum time span for a soil to recover its fertility before it is used again for
farming. Some authors (ex.:Araman, 2006) believe that major deforestation activities occur
along access roads. This assertion is supported by the fact that the farmers will later on use
the roads to transport the produce to commercial centers. The continuous deforestation of
new intact areas contributes significantly for the fragmentation of natural ecosystems in the
park impacting negatively on the conservation of the overall biodiversity.
Bush fires
Fire has been used as a tool in agriculture and hunting since the long back in Human history.
The impact of fire on earth, namely, habitat degradation with effects on the reduction of
biodiversity has widely been discussed. In Cabo Delgado, various vegetation types have been
exposed to bush fires almost every year. A recent preliminary study undertaken in the park
elected grasslands as the most vulnerable to fires due to their grass composition. The grass is
a combustible material vulnerable to fire hazards. It is evident, however, from the studies
undertaken elsewhere in eastern Africa (e.g. Burgess & Clark, 2000) that, the coastal forests
are less susceptible to fires and the frequent occurrence of fires in this ecosystem may lead to
47
species composition changes, allowing colonization of the site by typical miombo species
(Burgess & Clark, 2000).
In northern Mozambique, the fires occur mainly in the dry season (May to October). In the
QNP, fires occur commonly between July and October (Fig.16).
Figure 16. Incidencies of bush fires in the QNP for the years 2006 and 2009 based on the MODIS satellite data.
Further analysis of the data on QNP, it shows a tendency of fires close to residential areas or
selected vegetation types. The open vegetation types with dominance of grass stratum are
most vulnerable to fire incidences. In order to determine the most appropriate period for fires
on the grasslands, a study has been undertaken in the park. Despite that the setting up and
outcome of the study needs consideration, it recommends the use of cold fires. This shows
the need for further studies on the frequency of fires in the different vegetation types,
identification of the reasons for the fire outbreak, as well as the right time to use cold fires.
4.1.5 Conservation Aspects
Objectives/Challenges
“To protect, conserve and whenever necessary restore the ecosystem processes, species and
the genetic diversity of all the marine and terrestrial resources (living and non-living) in
the park and its surrounding” is the main objective of the Quirimbas National Park.
48
In order to fulfill this objective, the QNP faces challenges derived from the fact that the area
of the park is scientifically not very well known, specifically, in terms of its conservation
value. According to Burgess et al. (s/d), the scarcity of scientific based information about the
area precludes development of a comprehensive management plan as well as the possibilities
of the terrestrial component to attract adequate funding. The funding agencies need to ensure
that the biological value of the area is sufficiently known before funds are liberated for
conservation purposes. For instance, the WWF and the Conservation International have
considered the southern Tanzania as the southern limit for funding purposes, in the
framework of the ‘Global 200 ecoregions’ and ‘Hotspots’(Burgess et al., s/d). They argue
that consistent scientific information for the northern Mozambique and southwards is lacking.
Therefore, the need for science based information is crucial for defining the the southern limit
“priority” for conservation purposes. It should, however, be noted that four ecoregions
declared of global importance are represented in the QNP, despite that the knowledge about
their biodiversity value in the park is still scarce.
International conventions
The Eastern Africa Coastal forest Ecoregion Conservation Strategy is a guiding document
aimed at setting up inclusive biodiversity conservation actions for the park and ecoregion.
Signed by the Governments of Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique the document highlight the
importance of coastal forests in the ecoregion and establishes the general framework for
conservation of the ecosystem. Thus, the document describes the action plans for the regional
and national levels and the need for their implementation by the signatory nations.
Legislation
The relevant legislation for the conservation objectives of the QNP is the Forest and Wildlife
Act (Act n. 10/99), which states that the aim of a national park is the preservation of natural
ecosystems, mainly those of greater landscape beauty which are representative of the natural
and/or historic asset. The global objective of this legislation envisages:
“…the promotion of sustainable use of forestry and wildlife resources in view to promote
initiatives which ensure the protection and conservation of the resources and finally better
conditions for the wellbeing of the local communities”.
The article 4 of this act states that:
“…the objective is protection, conservation, development and sustainable use of forest and
wildlife for economic, social and ecological wellbeing of the present and future
generations.”
Implementation of the management objectives
The implementation of the management objectives should be done through the following
actions:
o Management of terrestrial vegetation
This component includes the management of biodiversity, management of the threads (in
general), management of fires (monitoring of its frequency and extension) and management
of species of importance for conservation (endemic, threatened, rare, in danger of extinction)
such as Strophantus hypoleicus, Phyllanthus guineense, Dombeya cinccinata, Combretum
umbricola, Quettarda speciosa, Croton megalocarpus, Diospyros consolatae, Indigophera
49
ormocropoides, Carpodiptera africana, Grewia glandulosa, Euphorbia cooperi, Euphorbia
confinalis, Alloe chaubaudii, Alloe maunii, Euphorbia knutii, Ceropegia sp. (Bandeira et al.,
2008).
o Protection of the vegetation which maintains the critical ecological processes
The vegetation types whose protection is critical for the maintenance of ecological processes
include the coastal forests, vegetation on the mountains (Inselbergs and succulent vegetation)
and dambos.
o Management of Invasive plant species
It is important the control of invasive plants in order to halt their propagation/dispersion.
Some of the species identified as invasive in the study area include Catharanthus roseus,
Pennisetum purpureum, Opuntia sp., Eleusine cocarane, Solanum panduriforme.
4.2 Terrestrial Fauna
There is limited documented information about the terrestrial fauna of the Cabo Delgado
province due to a limited number of scientific studies undertaken with the aim of assessing
the current status of fauna. However, the existing information is sufficient to conclude that
the Cabo Delgado province is rich in terrestrial wildlife, both in terms of species diversity and
abundance. Among terrestrial vertebrates, the great proportion of species corresponds to birds
(União Europeia, 2000). The heterogeneity of pristine habitats, the large extent of the
province, the low density of human population and the limited development of social and
economic infrastructure contribute to the great diversity and abundance of fauna in the
province. The gazzetment of the Quirimbas National Park (QNP) is a major opportunity for
the conservation of the diverse and abundant fauna of the province.
Table 16. Summary of the number of species and conservation status of terrestrial fauna of the QNP
Group
Number of species
Mammals
46
Birds
447
Reptiles
23
Amphibians 10
Insects
750
Total
1018
* Data deficient
Threatened species
(IUCN, 2009)
6
1
1
*
*
7
Species protected by Law
(Rep. de Moçambique, 2002)
13
12
1
*
*
26
50
4.2.1 Mammals
At least 46 species of mammals occur in the QNP (Bento, 2003; Schneider, 2004; Araman,
2007) (Table 17). According to DNTF (2009) the QNP is one of the five areas of the country
with the highest diversity of medium-large mammals. Four of the “big fives” occur in the
park, except Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis e Cerathoterium simum), whose occurrence has not
been confirmed.
The great diversity of mammal species in the QNP is attributed to factors such as the
prevalence of large patches of pristine habitats, low human population density and the
influence of the Niassa Reserve, which is the conservation area with the highest diversity and
abundance of large mammals in the country.
Besides the structure and composition of the vegetation as the key habitat components, the
availability of surface water is fundamental for the occurrence and distribution of fauna species,
particularly the use of habitats and the seasonal movements of water dependent species.
51
Table 17.
Estimates of population size and index of abundance of terrestrial mammals of the QNP (Araman and Mahommed, 2006)
Scientific Name
Loxodonta africana
Aepyceros melampus
Neotragus moschatus
Papio cynocephalus
Phacochoerus
aethiopicus
Potamochoerus
porcus
Raphicerus
campestris
Sylvicapra grimmia
Tragelaphus
strepsicerus
Canis mesomelas
Canis adustus
Cephalophus
natalensis
Cercopithecus mitis
Chlorocebus aethips
Hippotragus niger
Hystrix
africaeaustralis
Kobus
ellipsiprymmus
Common Name
Population estimate
index of abundance
Elephant
Impala
Suni
Savanna Baboon
1108 (2.93)
452 (2.62)
1759 (3.08)
6261 (17.6)
Warthog
1758 (6.16)
Bushpig
and
Lower
95%
confidence limit
Upper
95%
confidence limit
Conservation Status (Rep. de
Moçambique 2002, IUCN 2009)
365
3360
Near Threatened, increasing
population
131
839
2027
702
1567
3686
19334
4406
Lc, stable population
Lc, stable population
Lc, stable population
Lc, declining population
1640
15707
Lc, declining population
835
8110
Lc, stable population
376
602
2339
5263
Lc, stable population
Lc, stable population
5075 (5.54)
Steenbok
Common Duiker
2602 (1.85)
938 (2.31)
Kudu
Black-backed
Jackal
Side-striped Jackal
1780 (8.01)
Red Duiker
Samango Monkey
Vervet Monkey
Sable Antelope
(1.69)
(2.31)
Porcupine
(0.62)
Lc, stable population, §
(0.31)
Lc, stable population, §
Lc, declining population
Lc, declining population, §
Lc, stable population, §
Lc, stable population
Lc, stable population
(3.54)
Lc, declining population
Waterbuck
(1.54)
52
52
5
Lepus saxatilis
Oreotragus
oreotragus
Ourebia ourebi
Cephalophus
monticola
Procavia capensis
Syncerus caffer
Taurotragus oryx
Tragelaphus scriptus
Hippopotamus
amphibius
Scrub Hare
(0.77)
Klipspringer
Oribi
(0.46)
(1.39)
Blue Duiker
Hyrax
Buffalo
Eland
Bushbuck
(0.15)
(0.31)
(0.31)
(0.62)
(0.92)
Panthera leo
Lion
Panthera pardus
Leopard
Lycaon pictus
Wild Dog
Acinonyx jubatus
Felis silvestris lybica
Cyvettictis civetta
Mellivora capensis
Cheetah
African Wild Cat
Civet
Honey Badger
Southern Lesser
Bushbaby
Tree Squirrel
Zebra
Galago moholi
Paraxerus cepapi
Equus burchelli
Thryonomys
swinderianus
Orycteropus afer
Paraxerus palliatus
Lc, declining population
Lc, stable population, §
Lc, declining population
Lc, stable population
Lc, unknown trend
Lc, declining population
Lc, stable population
Vulnerable,
declining
population
Vulnerable,
declining
population
Near Threatened, declining
population
Endangered,
declining
population, §
Vulnerable,
declining
population, §
§
Lc, unknown trend, §
Lc, declining population, §
Lc, stable population, §
Hippopotamus
(0.15)
Lc, stable population
Lc, stable population
Lc, unknown trend
Great Cane Rat
Aardvark
Red Squirrel
Lc, unknown trend
Lc, unknown trend
53
53
5
Crocuta crocuta
Epomophorus sp.
Chaerephon pumila
Elephantulus sp.
Crocidura hirta
Aethomys
chrysophilus
Spotted Hyaena
Fruit Bat
Little Free-tailed
Bat
Short-snouted
Elephant-shrew
Lesser Red Musk
Shrew
Lc, declining population, §
Lc, unknown trend
Lc, unknown trend
Lc, unknown trend
Red Vel Rat
Lc – species of least conservation concern globally, including populations widely distributed and abundant worldwide (IUCN, 2009)
§ - species protected by Law in Mozambique according to the Forest and Wildlife Law (República de Moçambique, 2002), i.e. species whose hunting is prohibited in
Mozambique
The numbers in brakets indicates the index of abundance, estimated as number of animals seen every 100 km of transects walked during wildlife ground counts (Araman and
Mahommed, 2006)
54
54
5
Mammal species were identified by direct observation of animals during sample area ground
counts along systematic transects set in the blocks A, B and C (Figure 15). These blocks are
the areas with higher potential for wildlife conservation than other areas of the park (Araman
and Mahommed, 2006). At the Mareja Reserve, in the surroundings of the QNP, the clecklist
of species was prepared using results obtained from a combination of survey methods such as
pitfall traps, Sherman traps, mist nets, search and observation of animals and or their indirect
signs such as droppings, footprings, paths, etc (Schneider, 2004). The species appearing in
Table 16 without estimates of population size are those seen rarely during ground counts, and
therefore population estimates would be within wide confidence limits due to a low number
of observations. Other species without information on population size are the species with
occurrence registered only on the basis of observation and identification of indirect signs of
animal presence. Besides the species recorded during ground counts and trapping, Doggart
and Burgess (2002) recorded the occurrence of roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus) on the
basis of the skin shown by humans.
For most species estimates of population size were within wide confidence limits (Table 16).
This low precision of the estimates shows that ground counts produced unreliable results.
This is a consequence of a low frequency of observation due to a low sampling intensity.
Furthermore, species distribution maps show areas of non-occurrence of species that might
not be realistic (Type II in distribution mapping). These gaps in animal occurrence are
probably a result of large spacing between transects during ground counts. For species with
substantial impacts on ecosystems, involved in human-wildlife conflicts and with high
economic value such as elephant, reliable estimates of population sizes would be crucial for
the management of animal populations and for the mitigation of conflicts with humans.
Despite low precision of the estimates, ground counts allowed the mapping of the distribution
of small-medium mammal species, which would not be possible with the use of other
inventory methods. In addition to population estimates and maps, terrestrial counts produced
the index of abundance for selected species, which is a relative measure of population status
and can be used for monitoring to detect population trends for each species.
The number of animals of different mammal species is generally low in the QNP. The most
abundant species include savanna baboon, bushpig, warthog, kudu and suni (Table 16).
Medim and large mammals are concentrated in the interior of the Meluco, Quissanga, Macomia
and Ancuabe districts (União Europeia, 2000; Ntumi, 2005). Three blocks have been
identified as potential zones for total protection due to a low density of human population
(Figure 15) and therefore, these are areas with low incidence of threats to species and/or their
habitats.
The occurrence of wildbeest in the QNP is restricted. This species was seen in the open
mountain forest, between the Mwitiri and Messalo River in the buffer zone to the North-West
of the park. Buffalo were also hardly seen during ground counts, in closed forests near
permanent water sources between the Nairoto and Messalo River, in the buffer zone to the
North-West of the park and between the Bilibiza and Miaphia Lakes in block B. Common
duiker are widely distributed in the park and use a wide range of habitats including patches of
closed-open vegetation in the blocks A, B and C. The distribution of klipspringer is restricted
to rocky areas, from the Meluco mountains to the region of Chirima and Ngura mountains in
the south of Montepuez River. Red duiker are common in the park, occurring in closed
woodlands in proximity to perennial water sources in block C, along the Muagamula River
55
and from Lake Bilibiza to the swampy area of Mahipa in block B. Suni is a common species
using closed woodlands across the park, but with major concentrations in the blocks A and C
(Figure 15). Kudu were also abundant and widely distributed in patches of open and closed
woodlands across the park. Eland is a rare species in the park. This species was recorded in
tall grass grasslands in the north of block C, south of block B at Namacula and in the NorthWest of block C in Ravia and Namagico. Elephant are abundant, widespread and use a wide
variety of habitats from closed woodlands to grasslands, but always close to perennial sources
of water (Araman and Mahommed, 2006; Araman, 2007). Data obtained during the national
wildlife census (DNTF, 2009) also showed the occurrence of elephant across the whole park.
Elephant were particularly common resident in the regions of Tororo, Muagamula,
Namacula, Arimba and Pulo in the south of block B, in block A in the proximities of
Ngura/Miegane and in the north of the Manica village in block C (Araman and Mahommed,
2006; van Aarde, 2009). Warthog is an abundant species and occurs across the entire park in
habitats characterized by short grasslands and perennial water sources.
Bushpig are common and inhabit patches of semi-arid woodlands in the central region of
block C in Nambine and in the north of block B in the Namaluco area. The occurrence of
hippopotamus was recorded in deep waters of the Messalo River in the north-west of the park
and in Lake Bilibiza (Bento, 2003; Araman, 2007). Bushbuck is abundant and occurs across
the park, in closed woodlands near Rivers and other water sources. Bushbucks were seen by
Bento (2003) in the banks of the Muagamula River. Impala were rarely seen in the park, with
records in open forests close to water sources in the north of block A and in the buffer zone to
the north-west of the park between the Mwiriti and Nairoto Rivers. Sable antelope
distribution was restricted to the south-east of block A in patches of open woodlands in the
proximities of Mera and Mitepo mountains in the north of Montepuez River in Meluco.
Waterbuck were hardly seen. This species used open woodlands near water sources, with
concentrations in the proximities of Lakes Bilibiza and Miaphia. Zebra is also a rare species
in the QNP, where the distribution of this species was restricted to grasslands and open
woodlands between the Mwiriti and Messalo Rivers in the buffer zone to the north-west.
Wild dog were very rare, occurring in open woodlands, particularly in the Muagamula plains.
Side-stripped jackals were abundant and widely distributed in the park, in open-closed
woodlands. Spotted hyenas were common and found in open woodlands across the park.
Cheetah was hardly seen, with a distribution restricted to open woodlands of the Muagamula
plains. Lion used a wide range of habitats and were common and widespread in the park
(DNTF, 2009), but with concentrations in Bilibiza, Tipamoco, Nancaramo, Muagamula and
buffer zone in the north-west of the park. Leopard is also a common species, using openclosed woodlands across the park. Savanna baboons were abundant and recorded in a broad
range of habitats but always near water sources. Vervet monkey is also a species recorded in
a wide range of habitat types and widely distributed in the park.
56
Figure 17. Location of the total protection blocks in relation to the spatial distribution of density of human settlements
in the QNP (Araman, 2007).
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation Issues
Mammals with special conservation status: species of large mammals of special importance
for conservation include elephant, lion, wild dog, hippopotamus and cheetah. Elephants are
protected by the Forest and Wildlife Law of Mozambique (República de Moçambique, 2002)
and are Near Threatened globally, but with population increasing (IUCN, 2009). Apart from
data obtained during ground counts, elephant spatial distribution was determined from space
use data downloaded monthly from collars fitted on selected animals by the University of
Pretoria (van Aarde, 2009). These data allowed the identification of areas of concentrated use
of space, migration routes and hence areas of potential human-elephant conflicts. Wild dogs
are Endangered and their population is declining worldwide (IUCN, 2009) and are protected
by Law in Mozambique (República de Moçambique, 2002). Population size and spatial
distribution, threats and management options to reduce the threats and promote the
conservation of wild dog in the QNP have been studied (André, 2006). The vulnerability of
this species to extinction could be due to habitat fragmentation for wild dog packs that use
extensive home ranges, due to competition with larger carnivores and due to low population
densities (André, 2006). Besides QNP, wild dog also occur in the Niassa Reserve. Therefore,
there is a challenge of determining whether the population is continuous or there are two
isolated subpopulations and apply appropriate approaches for the conservation of this species
in northern Mozambique. Lion, cheetah and hippopotamus are Vulnerable and with
populations declining worldwide (IUCN, 2009). In addition, cheetah is protected by Law in
Mozambique (República de Moçambique, 2002).
Although populations of sable antelope and roan antelope are probably stable ou increasing in
Mozambique, the populations of these species are declining in several conservation areas of
southern Africa (Grant and van der Walt, 2000). Accordingly, the conservation of these
species in the QNP contributes to the regional efforts for the conservation of these species.
Furthermore, roan antelope is a species protected by Law in Mozambique (República de
Moçambique, 2002).
57
Uncontrolled fires: bushfires, generally caused by shifting agriculture, are among the main
causes of alteration of habitat structure. Over the long term, fires can change grassland
species composition. However, a fire regime appropriate to the agro-ecological conditions of
the park would increase animal carrying capacity because veld burning promotes the use of
grass species generally neglected by animals (Tainton, 1999). Araman (2007) recommended
burning every five years for grasslands dominated by palatable grass species such as
Themeda triandra and Digitaria eriantha and an interval of two years between fires for
grasslands dominated by unpalatable grass species such as Andropogon spp. Neverthesess,
the foundation for this burning frequency is unclear because the study by Araman (2007) was
conducted for a short period (3-6 months between the beginning and the end of the dry
season). Burnt areas should be monitored through regular assessment of the vegetation to
establish the impact of fire frequency and season, combined with grazing, on grassland
species composition over the long term. There is a need for patch mosaic burning, through
ignitions in different months of the year to create different habitats in terms of grassland
height, which will promote coexistence among animals with different food niches (grass
height preferences).
Poaching: illegal hunting is carried out for the subsistence of the families, although
sometimes hunted animals are sold. The main threat is the use of unselective hunting
techniques such as snares and traps, which capture animals of both sexes, any age and even
non-edible animal species. Apart from trapping, poachers use traditional fire arms to kill
animals. QNP patrolling data show that antelope species and bushpig are the most captured
species. Hunting for the protection of people and their goods is also a pratice in the QNP and
the target species have been elephant, lion and hippopotamus. For this hunting, conventional
fire arms are used by authorized community hunters.
Human-wildlife conflicts: conflicts between humans and wild animals result from
competition for space and resources therein between the human and animal populations, both
in an increasing trend. Due to these conflicts many people were killed or injured by wild
animals, lost domestic animals or crops due to attacks by wild animals. Wild animals were
also killed, injured, lost their habitats and other preferred resources or their migration routes
were blocked by humans (Ntumi, 2005). The human-wildlife conflict combined with the lack
of direct benefits from conservation to local communities is a threat to biodiversity
conservation due to the negative attitude that conflicts create on humans. Elephants and lions
are the main problem species, although crocodiles, hyaenas, bushpig, monkeys and birds also
contribute to the conflict (Ntumi, 2005; DNTF, 2009). DNTF records and the national
wildlife census (DNTF, 2009) also revealed that the QNP is an area with high incidence of
human-wildlife conflicts due to a concentration of elephants and cultivated fields.
According to Ntumi (2005), within the QNP boundaries, the areas with more records of
conflicts are the villages of Muaja, Naputa, Ndique, Namanje, Ntessa, Tapara and Tororo
(Quissanga District); Manica, Muagamula and Machova (Macomia District); Pedreira,
Mitambo, Massassi and Unguia (Meluco District); Ngura and Jiúte (Ancuabe District) and
the 25 de Junho village in the Pemba-Metuge District (Figure 18).
A need of mitigating human-wildlife conflicts was the main reason for local communities to
request the proclamation of the QNP (Ministério do Turismo, 2004). In fact, conflicts have
been reducing in frequency and severity due to a number of measures implemented by park
managers in collaboration with local communities. Among these applied measures to mitigate
the conflict, is the organization of cultivation fields in blocks, fencing of cultivated fields,
58
frightening and driving away elephants using pepper guns or fire arms, etc. Results show that
organizing cultivated fields in blocks contributed to the reduction of crop raiding by
elephants (Araman, 2007), ensuring an increase in crop yields. Subsequently, there was an
increase in the number of blocks of cultivated fields due to the abandonment of isolated
cultivated fields by farmers (Araman, 2007). In addition, the identification of elephant
migration routes made possible the erection of a fence to protect cultivated fields with a
minimum interference on the seasonal patterns of elephant movements.
Figure 18. Location of areas with high incidence of human-wildlife conflicts in the QNP (source: Ntumi 2005).
The closed forests of the Meluco District are the centre of many groups of elephants in the
QNP. There are two main elephant routes that start in the closed forests of block A in Meluco
(Figure 18). In the first route, elephants move from the proximities of the Sitati village and
follow the riverine forest of the Muaguide River to the Quissanga District, passing through
the Tororo, Tapara, Merussa, Bilibiza, Namadhai, Ngirirumba villages to the Nipácue village.
The prevalence of a closed forest in the proximities of Nipácue village makes this area an
area of concentrations of elephant herds coming from Meluco. In the second route, from
Meluco elephants go through the banks of the Ncueto River to the Mitambo village, near
Quissanga (Ntumi, 2005).
These two routes are linked by another route that starts in the Macomia District and ends in
Quissanga. It is believed that elephants come from the Niassa Reserve, follow the Lugenda
River and reach the Messalo River. From this River elephants go through the lowlands of the
Mueda and Muedumbe Districts and through the area between the Chicomo and Nguida
villages and subsequently reach the Muagamula River. After concentrations in the woodlands
of the Muagamula River, elephants move through the Muto-wamuenhe River until Quiterajo.
From Quiterajo in the coast of Macomia District, elephants move through the Mucojo,
Namaluco, Nipalica and Ntuane villages until the Nraha village in Bilibiza. In Bilibiza
elephants subdivide in small groups that follow different routes. At the end, elephants
concentrate again in Bilibiza and return to Macomia, passing through the same villages
(Figure 19).
59
Figure 19. Main elephant movement routes (yellow lines and arrows) used to get in and out of the QNP, overlaid on the
vegetation types and main Rivers (source: Ntumi, 2005)
The areas of high concentration of fauna, including the elephant migration routes, such as the
banks of the main Rivers (Montepuez, Muaguide and Muagamula) and the Lake Bilibiza
(Figure 19), are also areas with concentration of villages/human settlements (Figure 7). This
overlap in the use of space results in high incidence of conflicts between humans and wild
animals (Figure 18).
4.2.2 Birds
There is a great diversity of birds in the QNP. The diversity of bird habitats and microhabitats
is also high, including the sea, intertidal space, mangrove, grasslands, wetlands, islands,
woodlands in regeneration, miombo woodlands, forests and cultivated fields (Bento, 2003;
Artumas, 2007). Bento (2003) identified 204 species of birds in the park, although some
potential habitats such as shrubby areas, woodlands in regeneration, grasslands and cultivated
fields were not included in the sampling and bird survey was conducted only during the dry
season. The results obtained by Bento (2003) were complemented by the study by Wilson
(2009), which also included bird survey during the rain season. Wilson (2009) indicated the
possibility of occurrence of 447 bird species in the QNP (Appendix 4). Among the identified
species, at least one, the ground hornbill (Bucorvus leadbeateri) is globally threatened by
extinction (IUCN, 2009).
Major concentrations of birds were recorded in perennial Lakes and Rivers. The Lake
Bilibiza is a location of high concentrations of birds. About 26 species of aquatic birds were
identified in only three hours of survey that covered only about 30% of the lake’s surface
(Bento, 2003). Therefore, the number of bird species identified is an under-estimate of the
species richness in Lake Bilibiza and surrounding areas. The riverine forests and other
woodlands associated to rivers are habitats for a great diversity of species due to a
combination of distinct microhabitats in a small area (Bento, 2003). In only one day, Bento
60
(2003) identified more than 100 bird species in these habitats. The coastal zone is also
inhabited by high numbers of a wide variety of species, including paleartic migratory aquatic
birds. According to Bento (2003), the QNP is where southern African birds meet with east
African birds. Accordingly, the park offers a unique opportunity to watch a huge diversity of
birds, from the coastal zone to the closed woodlands and water bodies in the inland of the
park, particularly during the rain season when the migratory birds return from Asia. Dry
woodlands far from water showed low number of species (Bento, 2003).
The diversity of aquatic birds in the Lake Bilibiza indicates that this lake is of national
importance for the conservation of wetlands, especially as habitats for aquatic birds
(waterfowls). Apart from resident aquatic birds, the Bilibiza Lake provides habitat for
migratory birds. At least 44 migratory species were identified (Wilson, 2009), out of which
two species, Pelecanus Onocrotalus and Falco naumanni, are listed in the Appendix 1 of the
Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), which means that at the global level these species
are threatened by extinction in the entire or in a significant proportion of their distribution
range (CMS, 2002). Species listed in the Appendix II of CMS, i.e. migratory species with a
non-favourable conservation status, hence requiring international cooperation for the
conservation of species or their habitats, include Ixobrychus sturmi, Mycteria ibis, Platalea
alba, Pandion haliaetus, Pandion haliaetus, Crex crex, Sterna nilotica, Sterna bengalensis,
Sterna fuscata, Sterna hirundo, Sterna bergii, Sterna sandvicensis, Sterna albifrons, Sterna
saundersi, Chlidonias leucopterus e Merops apiaster. The remaining migratory bird species
are common and of least concern for conservation. Individuals of some species of migratory
birds were tagged for the monitoring of their movements. However, results of this monitoring
program are still not available.
There is no quantitative data on the abundance and frequency of bird species. However,
Araman (2007), following the work conducted by Bento (2003), classified bird species as
abundant, common and rare based on the number of individuals seen and on the frequency of
observation in the park. Rare species are priority for conservation due to a low frequency of
observation, which could be associated to a restricted distribution due to specialization in
habitat use. Twenty-six species of birds were classified as locally rare, including
Schoutedenapus myoptilus, Pluvialis squatarola, Pandion haliaetus, Onychognathus morio,
Nicator gularis, Nectarinia venusta, Microparra capensis, Megaceryle maxima, Lybius
melanopterus, Hirundo albigularis, Erythropygia leucophrys, Egretta garzetta, Dendropicos
fuscescens, Cypsiurus parvus, Cossypha heuglini, Charadrius pecuarius, Campethera
cailliautii, Campethera abingoni, Burhinus vermiculatus, Bucorvus leadbeateri, Apalis
flavida, Alcedo cristata, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus, Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris,
Lagonosticta rhodopareia. According to the Red Data List (IUCN, 2009) all these rare
species are of least conservation concern globally, despite being locally important for
biodiversity conservation. The Bilibiza Lake was the site with higher number of rare species,
with a total of five species identified, followed by islands, the Montepuez and Muagamula
River and the riverine habitats associated to these Rivers (Araman, 2007). According to
República de Moçambique (2002), the following species that occur in the QNP are protected
by Law in Mozambique, i.e. the hunting of these species is prohibited: Bubulcus ibis,
Bucorvus leadbeateri, Ardea cinerea, Ardea melanocephala, Ardea goliath, Ardea purpurea,
Casmerodius albus, Egretta garzetta, Egretta intermedia, Egretta ardesiaca, Ardeola
ralloides, Butorides striatus.
Threats to the conservation of birds in the QNP
61
Burnt areas are inhabited by a lower number and diversity of bird species than unburnt areas
(Bento, 2003). This suggests that burning represents a threat to bird conservation in the park
due to habitat destruction, reduction in habitat quality, destruction of nests and hatchlings,
and consequently reducing population growth rates.
Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss caused by shifting agriculture is another threat to bird
conservation by reducing the extent of habitat patches, particularly in the proximities to
human settlements. The change in vegetation cover also associated with shifting cultivation
could alter the composition of bird communities in favour of species that prefer grasslands,
while jeopardizing bird species that use forests as key habitats.
4.2.3 Reptiles
The herpetofauna of Mozambique, incluing the QNP and surrounding areas is poorly
documented. Existing data indicate the occurrence of at least 23 species of reptiles in the
QNP and its surroundings, among lizards, tortoises, snakes and agamas (Bento, 2003;
Schneider, 2004; Araman, 2007). However, only 10 of these 23 species were identified on the
basis of direct observation of individuals (Bento, 2003; Schneider, 2004; Araman, 2007). The
occurrence of the remaing species was documented on the basis of interviews with local
people (Schneider, 2004), which reduces considerably the reliability of the data. The other
limitation of the study by Schneider (2004) is that this study was conducted during only a
week of the rain season (November), and hence the study did not consider the likely seasonal
variation in the occurrence of species. Some reptile species identified include the python
(Python sebae natalensis), which is locally rare and protected by Law in Mozambique
(República de Moçambique, 2002). Python were recorded near rivers in the Muagamula
region. Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus) are also rare in the park, occur in open woodlands in
the Ngura region in the south of Montepuez River, in block B and in the Bilibiza Lake.
Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) are common in water bodies such as the Messalo, Nairoto
and Montepuez Rivers and Bilibiza Lake (Bento, 2003; Ntumi, 2005; Araman, 2007). Black
mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) are common and were recorded in grasslands close to the
Muagamula River from the Ningaia region to Napala. Other reptile species recorded in the
QNP and surrounding areas include Mabuya quinquetaeniata margaritifer, Nucras ornata,
Agama mossambica, Thelotornis capensis, Psammophis subtaeniatus orientalis, Nucras
caesicaudata, Philothamnus semivariegatus. However, this list is an under-estimate of the
reptile diversity because there is no study in the QNP that covered the diversity of potential
habitats for reptiles during different seasons of the year.
4.2.4 Amphibians
At least 10 species of amphibians occur in the QNP and surrounding areas, including toads
and frogs (Doggart and Burgess, 2002; Schneider, 2004). Nevertheless, only five of these
species were really seen (Doggart and Burgess, 2002; Schneider, 2004), the remaining five
species were recorded based on information about their occurrence provided by local people
(Schneider, 2004). The study conducted by Doggart and Burgess (2002) is very limited
62
because it lasted only two days of the rain season and only covered two habitat types, namely
the riverine habitats and the inselbergs. The identified species included Phrynobatrachus
mababiensis, Chiromantis xerampelina, Ptychadena sp., Arthroleptis sp., Afrixalus sp. and
Hyperolius sp. Similar to reptiles; amphibians have not been studied in the QNP despite their
importance as indicators of environmental changes. Therefore, the existing data is an underestimate of amphibian diversity in the park.
4.2.5 Insects
A wide variety of methods of insect survey such sweep nets, pitfall traps, searches and
identification of individuals, etc was applied in the Mareja Reserve, in the buffer zone of the
QNP by Schneider (2004) and by Rasplus et al. (2009) in the coastal forests of Cabo
Delgado. The objective of these surveys was to assess insect diversity and endemism. Results
showed a diversity of insects consisting of 750 species associated to a great diversity of
habitats in these areas with climate and vegetation similar to QNP. At least 60 species of
butterflies, 60 species of moths, about 450 species of beetles and other orders within the
insect class were identified. However, no specific study has been conducted on the insects of
the QNP, despite the enormous functions of this taxonomic group in the maintenance of
ecological processes. There is a need of a survey to improve the invertebrate database and to
map the hotspots of diversity, rarity and endemism.
63
Table 18. Summary of the existing knowledge and gaps of knowledge about terrestrial fauna
Taxonomic Group
Existing knowledge
•
Preliminary list of mammal species occurring
in the QNP
•
Estimates of population sizes for species of
medium-large mammals, although these estimates are within wide confidence limits
Preliminary mapping of the distribution of medium-large mammals
MAMMALS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
BIRDS
•
REPTILES
AND
•
Areas with high concentrations of elephant and
areas with high incidence of human-elephant
conflicts identified and mapped
Methods to mitigate human-elephant conflicts
identified and ongoing studies to identify the
most efficient methods
Ongoing mapping of perennial water sources
Some ongoing studies to assess the effect of
management interventions (for exemple veld
burning and fencing) on species movements
and distribution patterns, particularly elephants
A detailed study on the wild dog ecology
List of species and identification of habitats
with higher species diversity
Ongoing study on the movements of migratory
birds
Preliminary list of species occurring in the
Gaps (knowledge that is relevant for management
but is not available)
• Lack of reliable estimates of population sizes,
including for species of conservation importance such as elephant
• Lack of reliable maps showing areas of species
concentrations and habitats supporting higher
species diversity and abundance
• Lack of list of small mammals, particularly for
the documentation of priority species for conservation such as rare endemic and threatened
species. The habitats supporting higher diversity of small mammals are not known
•
•
•
64
Identification of bird nesting sites, particularly
for rare species
Identification of threats and of habitats most
threatened by human activities
List of species and identification of areas and
AMPHIBIANS
QNP and surrounding areas
•
65
habitats with higher species diversity
Identification of threats and of reptile habitats
most threatened by human activities
4.2.6 Terrestrial fauna management issues
Management interventions should be directed at reducing the threats for conservation that are
identified in this document. Accordingly, the following management actions are priority for
implementation:
• Strengthening of patrolling activities to reduce poaching, particularly in regions of
the park with high diversity and abundance of animals;
• Continuous implementation of actions to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts;
• Prevention of uncontrolled fires;
• Regulate the expansion of shifting agriculture and other causes of habitat destruction
and fragmentation;
• Consider the possibility of establishing artificial water sources to reduce human-wildlife conflicts, promote the dispersion of animal in the landscape, increase animal density and the potential for ecotourism development in the QNP;
• To study movements and space use by animals, with emphasis on the effect of management interventions such as the application of fire in the distribution of animals in
the landscape.
66
5. Bibliography
Amade, F.M.C. (2008) Estudo da Estrutura, do Estado de Conservação e dos Factores
Ambientais, em Duas Florestas de mangal no Estuário Espírito Santo e no Saco da
Inhaca. Tese de Mestrado. FAEF/UEM.
André, J-M. 2006. Conservation status and ecology of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus)
in the Quirimbas National Park (Cabo Delgado province), Northern Mozambique
Anadarko. 2008. Environmental Impac Assessment Report. Deepwater Exploration Drilling
Operations in the Rovuma Offshore Area 1, Mozambique. Impacto, Lda
Araman, A. 2007. Gestão dos ecossistemas terrestres e marinhos do Parque Nacional das
Quirimbas
Araman, A. e Mahommed, J.D. 2006. Ground Count of Mammals of interest in the
Quirimbas National Park – Final Report
Artumas. 2007. Prospecção Sísmica de Hidrocarbonetos no Bloco Terrestre (onshore) da
Bacia do Rovuma - EIA
Bandeira, S. O., C. C. F. Macamo, J. G. Kairo, F. Amade, N. Jiddawi and J. Paula (2009)
Evaluation of mangrove structure and condition in two trans-boundary areas in the
Western Indian Ocean. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 19:
46–55.
Bento, C. 2003. Birds of Quirimbas. Relatório para o Parque Nacional das Quirimbas
Boletim da República – Decreto n. 43/2003 de 10/12 – Regulamento Geral De Pescas
Marinha.
Costa (2006) Report on Fish Monitoring in Quirimbas National Park September 2004 to
September 2005: Evaluation of Fish Population Within Matemo, Quilalea and Ibo Sanctuaries.
Costa A., 2007. Preliminary results of Fish catches inside the strict marine protected zone and
adjacent fished area: the case of Matemo and Ibo TMPZ within Quirimbas National Park, 10p
Gabrie, C.; You H. and Mercier, JR. 2008. Development programme for the Quirimbas
National Park in Mozambique - Capitalisation Report. Agence Française de
Developpement
Davidson, J. Bento, C. and Costa A. (2003). Assessement of coral biodiversity and Health,
and Establishment o a Monitoring Program in Cabo Delgado Biodiversity and Tourim
Project, Zoological Society of London. 118 pp. London
Davidson, J. Bento, C. and Costa A. (2003). Assessement of coral biodiversity and Health,
and Establishment o a Monitoring Program in Cabo Delgado Biodiversity and Tourim
Project, Zoological Society of London. 118 pp. London
67
Decreto N0 45/2004, Regulamento Sobre o Processo de Avaliação do Impacto Ambiental.
Boletim da República. I Série, Número 39.
Despacho Ministerial de 20 de Dezembro de 2003.
DINAGECA, 1999. Base cartográfica digital à escala 1:250 000.
Direcção Nacional de Terras e Florestas (DNTF) (2009). Inventário Nacional de Fauna
Bravia. Relatório não publicado
Dogcart N. and Burgess N. 2002. Field visit report to Quirimbas National Park, Mozambique
9th – 12th November. Unpublished report.
Estudo de impacto ambiental (EIA) na bacia do Rovuma, em 2006 em todas Ilhas do
Arquipélago das Quirimbas;
FAO, 1995. Land resource inventory of Mozambique. Rome. Italy.
Figueiredo, M. A.O., M. B. B. Barreto e R.P. REIS (2004) Caracterização das macroalgas nas
comunidades marinhas da Área de Proteção Ambiental de Cairuçú, Parati, RJ –
subsídios para futuros monitoramentos. Revista Brasil. Bot., V.27, n.1, p.11-17.
Frontier Mozambique (1997 e 1998) Marine Biological and Resouces Survey of the Quirimba
Archipelago, Northern Island Group (Macaloe, Mogundula, Rolas e Matemo), Central
Island Group (Ibo, Quirimba, Sencar e Quilaluia) e Southern Island Group (Mefumo,
Quisiva e Quipaco);
Frontier Mozambique (1997). Stanwell-Smith, D. António, C.M. Heasman, M. Myers, D.
Whittington M. W. (1998). Southern Island Group – Mefunvu, Quisiue e Quipaco
Island. Marine Biological and resource use Survey of the Quirimba Archipelach.
Frontier Mozambique Enviromental Research Report 4. Society for Enviromental
Exploration, London and Ministry for the Co-Ordination of Environmental Affairs,
Maputo.
Frontier Mozambique (1997). Whittington, M. W., António C. M., Corrie, A., Gell, F..
Central Island Group – Ibo, Quirimba Sencar and Quilaluia Island. Marine Biological
resource use Survey of the Quirimba Archipelag. Frontier Mozambique Enviromental
Research Report 3. Society for Enviromental Exploration, London and Ministry for the
Co-Ordination of Environmental Affairs, Maputo.
Frontier Mozambique (2004) Gell, F. (eds) The seagrass Fishery of Quirimba Island, an
interin report: Marine Biological and Resources Use Surveys of the Quirimba
Archipelago, Mozambique. Frontier Mozambique Environmental Research Report 5.
Society of Environmental Exploration UK and the Ministry for the coordination of
Environmental affairs, Maputo.
Grant, C.C. e van der Walt. 2000. Towards an adaptive management approach for the
conservation of rare antelope in the Kruger National Park – outcome of a workshop
held in May 2000. Koedoe 43: 103-111
Guissamulo, A.T. 2009. Análise de Impactos da prospecção sísmica 2D e 3D e das
perfurações exploratórias de poços nas águas costeiras pouco profundas pela empresa
AMA1 sobre os mamíferos marinhos e tartarugas marinhas na Área da Bacia do
Rovuma, Moçambique. Consultoria para a Impacto, Lda
INE, 2008. III Recenseamento Geral da População e Habitação. Dados provisórios. INE,
Maputo
68
IUCN. 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1. (www.iucnredlist.org).
Downloaded on 10/08/2009
J. E. Rousselot (2005). Caracterizacao sócio económica da comunidade piscatória da I. de
Quirimba, Norte de Mocambique. Universidade de Algarve, Portugal.
Louro, C. M. M., M. A. M. Pereira, A. C. D. Costa(2006), Reporto n the Conservation Satus
of Marine Turtles in Moçambique. MICOA, 45 pp Mocambique.
Ministério do Turismo. 2004. Plano de Maneio do Parque Nacional das Quirimbas (2004 –
2008). WWW-Moçambique
MITUR, 2003. Plano de Maneio 2004-2008: Parque Nacional das Quirimbas. Maputo.
Não identificado (2003) Coastal Aquaculture Surveying for Bivalve Culture in Quirimba
Natural Park – Ibo. IIP, Maputo, Mozambique.
Ntumi, C.P. 2005. Wildlife and Food security: The impact of human and wildlife conflicts in
food security in Cabo Delgado Province case study. Report to FAO
PEDD, 2006. Plano Estratégico do Desenvolvimento 2001- 2005. Documento produzido
para a “Segunda Conferência de Desenvolvimento da Província de Cabo Delgado”,
Pemba.
Rodrigues M. J., H. Motta, M.W. Whittington e M. Schleyer (in prep). Coral Reef of Western
Indian Ocean – Their Ecology and Conservation. Eds McClanahan, T. R. Sheppard, C.
e Obura, D. Oxford University Press
Schneider, M.F. 2004. Checklist de Vertebrados e Invertebrados da Reserva de Mareja.
Departamento de Engenharia Florestal, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane.
Silva C. e Sousa, M.I. (1988), Recursos Marinhos de Moçambique. BO n. 21. IIP. Maputo.
Moçambique.
Stanwell-Smith, D. António, C.M. Heasman, M. Myers, D. Whittington M. W. (1998)
Northern Islands Group – Macaloe, Mogundula, Rolas e Matemo Islands Marine and
Biological resource use Survey of the Quirimba Archipelag. Frontier Mozambique
Enviromental Research Report 2. Society for Enviromental Exploration, London and
Ministry for the Co-Ordination of Environmental Affairs, Maputo.
Tainton, N. 1999. Veld Management in South Africa. University of Natal Press.
Pietermaritzburg
União Europeia. 2000. Livro Branco dos Recursos Naturais da Província de Cabo Delgado
(Moçambique). Fauna e Recursos Cinegéticos. Volume 1. Pemba.
van Aarde, R. 2009. Preliminary assessment of elephant movements in the Quirimba district,
northern Mozambique. Interim Report to Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF
Mozambique)
Whittington M. W., Stanwell-Smith, D. António, C.M. Heasman, M. Myers, D. Whittington
M. W. (1997). Southern Island Group – Mefunvu, Quisiue e Quipaco Island. Marine
Biological and resource use Survey of the Quirimba Archipelach. Frontier Mozambique
Enviromental Research Report 4. Society for Enviromental Exploration, London and
Ministry for the Co-Ordination of Environmental Affairs, Maputo.
Whittington, M. W., Stanwell-Smith, D. António, C.M. Heasman, M. Myers, D.. (1998)
Northern Islands Group – Macaloe, Mogundula, Rolas e Matemo Islands Marine and
Biological resource use Survey of the Quirimba Archipelag. Frontier Mozambique
69
Enviromental Research Report 2. Society for Enviromental Exploration, London and
Ministry for the Co-Ordination of Environmental Affairs, Maputo.
Whittington, M. W., António C. M., Corrie, A., Gell, F. (1997). Central Island Group – Ibo,
Quirimba Sencar and Quilaluia Island. Marine Biological resource use Survey of the
Quirimba Archipelag. Frontier Mozambique Enviromental Research Report 3. Society
for Enviromental Exploration, London and Ministry for the Co-Ordination of
Environmental Affairs, Maputo.
70
Annexes
71
Annex 1. List of species of large seaweed in the Northern Island (Macaloe, Mogundula,
Rolas and Matemo)
Intertidal flora – Large seaweed
Cyanophyta
1. Lyngbya majuscula
Chlorophyta
1. Anadyomere whigthii
2. Avrainvillea erecta
3. Boergesenia forbesii
4. Boodlea composita
5. Bornetella oligospora
6. Bryopsis spp.
7. Caulerpa lentillifera
8. C. occidentalis
9. C. racemosa var. clavifera
10. C. racemosa var. turbinata
11. C. sertularioides
12. Chaetomorpha aerea
13. C. crassa
14. Chamaedoris delphinii
15. Chlorodesmis sp.
16. Cladophora fascicularis
17. C. mauritiana
18. C. sibogae
19. Cladophora sp.
20. Codium sp.
21. Dictyosphaeria cavernosa
22. D. verluysii
23. Enteromorpha kylinii
Phaeophyta
1. Chonospora implexa
2. Cistoseira myrica
3. C. trinodis
4. Dictyota adnata
5. D. cervicornis
6. D. ceylanica
7. D. divaricata
24. E. ramulosa
25. Enteromorpha sp.
26. Halimeda cilindracea
27. H. discoidea
28. H. opuntia
29. H. renschii
30. H. tuna
31. Microdictyon montagnei
32. Neomeris van bosseae
33. Spongocladia vaucheriaerformis
34. Udotea indica
35. Ulva fasciata
36. U. lacyuca
37. U. pertusa
38. U. pulchra
39. Ulva reticulata
40. U. rigida
41. Valonia aegagrophila
42. V. fastigiata
43. V. macrophysa
44. Valoniopsis pachynema
45. Ventricaria ventricosa
8. Hormophysa triqueta
9. Hydroclathrus clatrathus
10. Padina boryana
11. Padina gymnospora
12. P. tetrastomatica
13. Pocockiella variegata
14. Sargassum asperifolium
72
15. S. aquifolium
16. S. binderi
17. S. duplicatum
18. S. ilicifolium
19. S. latifolium
20. S. swartz
21. Sargassum sp.
22. Turbinaria canoides
23. T. ornata var. ornata
Rhodophyta
1. Acanthophora deodorised
2. A. muscoides
3. A. specifera
4. Acrocistis nana
5. Actinotrichia fragilis
6. Amphiroa anceps
7. A. beauvoice
8. A. fragilissima
9. Cf. trigilissima
10. A. cf. tribulus
11. Bostrychia tenella
12. Caulacanthus ustulatus
13. Centroceras clavulatum
14. Ceramium sp.
15. Champia sp.
16. C. dasiphylla
17. C. sedifolia
18. Dasyopsis cf. pilosa
19. Digenia simplex
20. Endosiphonia clavigera
21. Eucheuma dendiculata
22. Gelidiella acerosa
23. G. fasciculata
24. G. myrioclada
25. Gracilaria arcuata
26. G. fergusoni
27. G. folifera
28. Gracilaria sp.
29. Griffithisia rhizophora
30. Kappaphycus sp.
31. Halymenia venuta
32. H. Hamulosa
33. H. musciformis
34. H. cf. nidica
35. H. cf. nidulans
36. H. pannosa
37. Jania adhaerens
38. Laurencia columellaris
39. L. complanata
40. L. distichophyta
41. L. obtusa
42. L. papillosa
43. L. poiti
44. Liagora sp.
45. P. Pulvinata
46. Pterocladia parva
47. Rabdonia cf. africana
48. Sarconema filiformis
49. S. scianaioides
50. Soliera robusta
51. Spyridia sp.
52. Vanvoorstia spectabilis
53. Wurdemannia miniata
Subtidal Area
Cyanophyta
1. Lyngbya majuscula
Chlorophyta
1. Acetabularia sp.
2. A. Obscura
3. Bornetella oligospora
4. Caulerpa sp.
5. C.cupressoides var. typica
6. C. mexicana
7. C. racemosa cf. macrodisca
8. C. racemosa var. typica
9. C. selago
10. C. serrulata
73
11. C. sertularioides
12. C. taxifolia
13. Chamaedoris delphinii
14. Chlorodesmis sp.
15. Codium sp.
16. Dictyosphaeria cavernosa
17. Halimeda cilindricea
18. Halimeda gigas
19. Halimeda sp.
20. H. milanesica
21. H. opuntia
Phaephyta
1. Dictyopteris cf. deliculata
2. Dictyota adnata
3. D. pardalis
4. Padina gymnospora
5. P. tetrastomatica
6. Padina sp.
7. Pacockiella variegata
22. H. renschii
23. H. tuna
24. Halimeda sp.
25. Microdictyon montagnei
26. Neomeris van bosseae
27. Udotea indica
28. U. orientalis
29. U. flabellum f. longifolia
30. U. flabellum f. flabellum
31. U. glauscens
32. Valonia macrophysa
8. Sargassum aquifolium
9. S. Duplicatum
10. S. Polycystum
11. Sargassum sp.
12. Turbinaria ornata var. ornata
13. T. Ornara var. serrata
Rhodophyta
1. Acanthophora muscoides
2. A. Cf. tribulus
3. Amphiroa sp.
4. Chondrocosccus harvey
5. Endosiphonia clavigera
6. Euchaeuma dendiculatum
7. Galaxavra breniarticulata
8. G. fasciculata
9. G. tenera
10. Gracilaria sp.
11. G. verrucosa
12. Kappaphycus sp.
13. Hypnea cornuta
14. H. pannosa
15. Hypnea sp.
16. Jania adhaerens
17. Laurencia obtusa
18. Laurencia sp.
19. Liagora ceranoides
20. L. mauritiana
21. Liagora sp.
22. Poritiera harvey
23. P. pulvinata
24. Rabdonia cf. africana
25. Sarcodina sp.
26. Trichogloea sp.
74
Annex 2. List of species of large seaweed in the group of Central Islands (Ibo, Sencar,
Quirimba and Quilaluia)
Macroalgas
Cyanophyta
1. Lyngbya mjuscula
Chlorophyta
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Acetabularia sp.
Anadyomere wrigthii
Avrainvillea erecta
A. obscura
Boergesenia forbesii
Boodlea composita
Bornetella oligospora
Bryopsia spp.
Caulerpa cupressoides var.
flabellata
10. C. cf. fastigiata
11. C. lentillifera
12. C. occidentalis
13. C. peltata
14. C. racemosa var. clavifera
15. C. racemosa var. turbinata
16. C. racemosa var. uvifera
17. C. scapelliformis
18. C. selago
19. C. sertularioides
20. C. spp.
21. C. taxifolia
22. C. cf. zeyheri
23. Chaetomorpha aerea
24. C. crassa
25. Chaetomorpha?
26. Chamaedoris delphinii
27. Chlorodesmis hildebrandtii
28. Chlorodesmis sp.
29. Cladophora mauritiana
30. C. cf. saviniana
31. C. sibogae
32. Cladophora sp.
33. Codium arabicum?
34. C. dwarkense
35. C. geppi
36. Dictyosphaeria cavernosa
37. D. verluysii
38. Enteromorpha clathrata?
39. E. flexuosa?
40. E. kylini
41. E. ramulosa
42. Enteromorpha sp.
43. Halimeda cilindricea
44. H. discoidea
45. H. gigas
46. H. macroloba
47. H. micronesica?
48. H. milanesica
49. H. opuntia
50. H. renschii
51. Halimeda sp.
52. Microdictyon montagnei
53. Neomeris van bosseae
54. Rhizoclinium grande?
55. Spongocladia vaucheriaerformis
56. Udotea indica
57. U. orientalis
58. U. palmetta
59. U. flabellum f. longifolia
60. U. flabellum f. flabellum
61. U. glauscens
62. Ulva fasciata
63. Ulva lactuca
64. U. pertusa
65. U. pulchra
66. U. reticulata
67. U. rígida
68. Valonia aegagrophila
69. U. fastigiata
70. U. macrophysa
71. Valoriopsis pachynema
72. Ventricaria ventricosa
Phaeophyta
1. Chonospora implexa
2. Cistoseira myrica
3. C. trinodis
4. Colpomenia sinuosa
5. Dictyopteris sp.
6. Dictyota adnata
7. D. bartayresii
8. D. cervicornis
9. D. ceylanica
10. D. divaricata
11. D. friabilis
12. D. pardalis
13. Homorphysa triquetra
14. Hydroclathrus clatrathus
15. Hydroclathrus sp.
16. Padina boryana
17. Padina gymnospora
18. Rosenvingea intricata
19. Rosenvingea orientalis
20. Sargassum asperifolium
21. S. aquifolium
22. S. binderi
23. S. duplicatum
24. S. ilicifolium
25. S. swartz
26. Sargassum sp.
27. Turbinaria conoides
28. T. decurrens
29. T. ornata var. ornata
30. T. ornata var. serrata
Rhodophyta
1. Acanthophora dendroides
2. A. muscoides
3. A. specifera
4. Acrocistis nana
5. Actinotrichia fragilis
6. Amansia dietrichiana
7. A. glomerata
8. Amphiroa anceps
9. A. beauvoise
10. A. fragilíssima
11. A. cf. tribulus
12. Bostrychia binderi
13. B. radicans?
14. B. tenella
15. Caloglossa cf. leprieuri
16. Caulacanthus ustulatus
17. Catanella opuntia
18. Centroceras clavulatum
19. Ceramium sp.
20. C. compressa
21. C. cf. globulifera
22. Champia spp.
23. Chondria cf. arnata
24. C. dasyphylla
25. C. sedifolia
26. Chondrococcus harvey
27. Dasya sp.
28. Dasyopsis cf. pilosa
29. Dictyurus purpurascens
30. Digenia simplex
31. Endosiphonia clavigera
32. Eucheuma dendiculatum
33. Galaxaura breviarticulata
34. G. fasciculata
35. G. oblonga
36. G. Tenera
37. Gelidiopsis?
38. Gelidiella acerosa
39. G. myrioclada
40. Gelidium micropterum
41. Gracilaria arcuata
42. G. cf. corticata
43. G. crassa
44. G. edulis
45. G. fergusoni
46. G. folifera
47. millardetii
48. G. salicornia
49. G. spp.
50. G. verrucosa
51. Griffthisia rhizophora
52. Kappaphycus striatum
53. K. spp.
54. Halymenia sp.
55. Halimenia venusta
56. Hypnea cornuta
57. H. hamulosa
58. H. musciformis
59. H. cf. nidifica
60. H. cf. nidulans
61. H. pannosa
62. Jania adhaerens
63. Laurencia collumelaris
64. L. complanata
65. L. distichophyla
66. L. cf. divaricata
67. L. elata
68. L. obtusa
69. L. papilosa
70. L. cf. perforata
71. Liagora ceranoides
72. L. cf. divaricata
73. Liagora sp.
74. Muriaella periclados
75. Neurymenia fraxinifolia
76. Poritiera harvey
77. P. pulvinata
78. Pterocladia parva
79. Rabdonia cf. africana
80. Sarcodinia monatagnea
81. Sarconema filiformis
82. Soliera robusta
83. Spiridia filamentosa
84. S. fusiformis
85. Trichogloea sp.
86. Vanvoorstia spectabilis
87. Vidalia fimbriata
88. Wurdemannia miniata
89. Zellera turvallina
Annex 3. List of species of seagrass and seaweed in the group of Southern Islands
(Mefunvo, Quissiva e Quipaco)
Intertidal Flora
Cyanophyta
1. Lynbya majuscula
Chlorophyta
1. Anadyomere wrightii
2. Avrainvillea arecta
3. A. obscura
4. Boergesenia forbesii
5. Boodlea composita
6. Bornetella oligospora
7. Caulerpa racemosa var. clavifera
8. C. racemosa var. turbinata
9. C. racemosa var. uvifera
10. C. sertularioides
11. Caulerpa sp.
12. Chaetomorpha crassa
13. Chamaedoris delphinii
14. Chlodophora fascicularis
15. C. mauritiana
16. C. cf. saviniana
17. C. sibogae
18. Cladophora sp.
19. Codium dwarkense
20. Dictyosphaeria cavernosa
21. D. verluysii
22. Enteromorpha kylinii
23. Halimeda cilindracea
24. H. discoidea
25. H. macroloba
26. H. opuntia
27. H. tuna
28. Microdictyon montagnii
29. Neomeris van bosseae
30. Spongocladia vaucheriaerformis
31. Ulva fasciata
32. U. lactuca
33. V. palmetta
34. V. pertusa
35. Udotea orientalis
36. U. pulchra
37. U. reticulata
38. U. rigida
39. Valonia aegagrophila
40. U. fastigiata
41. V. macrophysa
42. Valoniopsis pachynema
Phaephyta
1. Cistoseira myrica
2. C. trinodis
3. Dictyopteris delicatula
4. Dictyota adnata
5. D. bartayresii
6. D. cervicornis
7. D. ceylanica
8. D. divaricata
9. D. friabilis
10. D. pardalis
11. Homorphysa triqueta
12. Hydroclathrus clatrathus
13. Padina boryana
14. P. gymnospora
15. Padina sp.
16. Sargassum aquifolium
17. S. asperifolium
18. S. Binderi
19. S. duplicatum
20. S. swartz
21. Sargassum sp.
22. Spatoglossum asperum
23. Turbinaria conoides
24. T. ornata var. ornata
Rhodophyta
1. Acanthophora
2. A. muscoides
3. A. specifera
4. Acrocistis nana
5. Actinotrichia fragilis
6. Amansia dietrichiana
7. A. glomerata
8. Ampiroa anceps
9. A. beauvoise
10. A. fragilissima
11. Bostrychia binderi
12. B. tenella
13. Caulacanthus ustulatus
14. Centrocerus clavulatum
15. Ceramium sp.
16. Champia cf. indica
17. C. cf. globulifera
18. Champia sp.
19. Chondria cf. armata
20. C. dasyphyla
21. C. sedifolia
22. Chondria sp.
23. Dasyopsis cf. pilosa
24. Digenia simplex
25. Endosiphonia clavigera
26. Eucheuma dendiculatum
27. Gelidiella acerosa
28. G. myrioclada
29. G. crassa
30. G. edulis
31. G. fasciculata
32. G. fergusoni
33. G. folifera
34. G. millardeti
35. G. salicornia
36. Gracilaria sp.
37. Kappaphycus sp.
38. Halymenia venusta
39. Hypnea cornuta
40. H. hamulosa
41. H. musciformis
42. H.cf. nidifica
43. H. Cf. nidulans
44. H. panosa
45. Jania adhaerens
46. Laurencia columellaris
47. L. complanata
48. L. distichophyla
49. L. optusa
50. L. papillosa
51. L. poiti
52. Laurencia sp.
53. Liagora ceranoides
54. Poritiera harvey
55. P. Pulvinata
56. Pterocladia parva
57. Sarconema filiformis
58. Soliera robusta
59. Vanvoorstia spectabilis
60. Wurdemannia miniata
Subtidal Flora
Seaweed
Cyanophyta
Lyngbya majuscula
Chlorophyta
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
m)
n)
o)
p)
q)
r)
Acetabularia sp.
Anadyomere wrightii
Avrainvillea erecta
A. obscura
Bornetella oligospora
Bryopsis sp.
Caulerpa sp.
C. cupressoides var. flabellata
C. lannuginosa
C. peltata
C. scapelliformis
C. serrulata
C. sertularioides
C. taxifolia
Chaetomorpha crassa
Chamaedoris delphinii
Chlorodesmis sp.
Codium dwarkense
s) C. geppi
t) Codium sp.
u) Dictyosphaeria cavernosa
v) D. verluysii
w) Halimeda cilindrica
x) H. discoidea
y) H. gigas
z) H. macroloba
aa) H. milanesica
bb) H. renschii
cc) Halimeda sp.
dd) Neomeris van bosseae
ee) Udotea flabellum f. flabellum
ff) U. flabellum f. longifolia
gg) U. glauscens
hh) U. orientalis
ii) Ventricaria ventricosa
Phaeophyta
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Chonospora implexa
Cladosiphon occidentale
Dictyopteris delicatula
Dictyota adnata
D. ciliolata
D. divaricata
D. pardalis
Hydroclathrus clatrathus
Padina boryana
10. P. gymnospora
11. Pocockiella variegata
12. Rosenvingea intricata
13. Sargassum aquifolium
14. S. duplicatum
15. S. latifolium
16. S. swartz
17. Sargassum sp.
18. Spatoglossum asperum
19. Turbinaria decurrens
20. T.ornata var. ornata
Rodophyta
1. Actinotrichia fragilis
2. Amphiroa anceps
3. A. fragilissima
4. Chondrococcus harvey
5. Galaxaura breviarticulata
6. G. oblongata
7. G. tenera
8. Haliptylon subulata
9. Halymenia venusta
10. Hypnea cornuta
11. Jania adhaerens
12. Laurencia columellaris
13. Liagora tenera
Liagora sp.
Annex 4. List of bird species of the Quirimbas National Park (Wilson 2009)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Latin name
Accipiter badius
Bubo africanus
Caprimulgus pectoralis
Centropus burchellii
Cisticola chiniana
Coturnix coturnix
Francolinus sephaena
Melierax metabates
Merops hirundineus
Stactolaema leucotis
Streptopelia semitorquata
Treron calva
Milvus aegyptus
Accipiter tachiro
Urocolius indicus
Egretta ardesiaca
Acrocephalus palustris
Buteo vulpinus
Delichon urbica
Hippolais icterina
Hirundo rustica
Lanius collurio
Merops apiaster
Merops persicus
Motacilla flava
Muscicapa striata
Oriolus oriolus
Phylloscopus trochilus
Riparia riparia
Sylvia borin
Erythrocercus livingstonei
Prinia subflava
Acrocephalus gracilirostris
Andropadus importunus
Ardea cinerea
Ardea goliath
Ardea melanocephala
Ardea purpurea
Ardeola ralloides
Bostrychia hagedash
Butorides striatus
Cercomela familiaris
English name
Shikra
Spotted Eagle Owl
Fiery-necked Nightjar
Burchell’s Coucal
Rattling Cisticola
Common Quail
Crested Francolin
Dark-chanting Goshawk
Swallow-tailed Bee-eater
White-eared Barbet
Red-eyed Dove
African Green-Pigeon
Yellowbilled Kite
African Goshawk
Red-faced Mousebird
Black Heron
Marsh Warbler
Steppe Buzzard
Common House Martin
Icterine Warbler
Barn Swallow
Red-backed Shrike
European Bee-eater
Blue-cheeked Bee-eater
Yellow Wagtail
Spotted Flycatcher
Eurasian Golden Oriole
Willow Warbler
Bank Swallow
Garden Warbler
Livingstone’s Flycatcher
Tawny-flanked Prinia
Lesser Swamp-Warbler
Sombre Greenbul
Grey Heron
Goliath Heron
Black-headed Heron
Purple Heron
Squacco Heron
Hadeda Ibis
Green-backed Heron
Familiar Chat
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Cercotrichas quadrivirgata
Chlorocichla flaviventris
Ciconia episcopus
Cisticola juncidis
Cossypha natalensis
Dicrurus adsimilis
Dicrurus ludwigii
Dryoscopus cubla
Egretta alba
Egretta garzetta
Egretta intermedia
Fregata minor
Laniarius aethiopicus
Malaconotus blanchoti
Melaenornis pammelaina
Morus capensis
Motacilla aguimp
Nectarinia talatala
Nilaus afer
Parus niger
Phalacrocorax africanus
Phalacrocorax lucidus
Platysteira peltata
Prionops plumatus
Prionops retzii
Pycnonotus tricolor
Scopus umbretta
Sylvietta whytii
Tchagra australis
Tchagra senegala
Telophorus sulfureopectus
Telophorus zeylonus
Turdoides jardineii
Bubulcus ibis
Calonectris diomedea
Dromas ardeola
Oceanites oceanicus
Petrodroma macroptera
Phaethon lepturus
Puffinus lherminieri
Stercorarius longicaudus
Stercorarius parasiticus
Stercorarius pomarinus
Sula dactylatra
Daption capense
Thalassarche carteri
Bearded Scrub-Robin
Yellow-bellied Greenbul
Woolly-necked Stork
Zitting Cisticola
Red-capped Robin-Chat
Forktailed Drongo
Squaretailed Drongo
Black-backed Puffback
Great-white Egret
Little Egret
Yellow-billed Egret
Greater Frigatebird
Tropical Boubou
Grey-headed Bush-Shrike
Southern Black Flycatcher
Cape Gannet
African Pied Wagtail
White-bellied Sunbird
Brubru
Southern Black Tit
Reed Cormorant
White-breasted Cormorant
Black-throated Wattle-eye
White Helmet-shrike
Redbilled Helmet-shrike
Dark-capped Bulbul
Hammerkop
Redfaced Crombec
Brown-crowned Tchagra
Black-crowned Tchagra
Orange-breasted Bush-Shrike
Gorgeous Bush-Shrike
Arrowmarked Babbler
Cattle Egret
Cory's Shearwater
Crab Plover
Wilson's Storm-petrel
Great-winged Petrel
White-tailed Tropicbird
Audubon's Shearwater
Long-tailed Jaeger
Parasitic Jaeger
Pomarine Jaeger
Masked Booby
Pintado Petrel
Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Thalassarche cauta
Strix woodfordii
Actophilornis africanus
Amaurornis flavirostris
Apaloderma narina
Apus affinis
Aviceda cuculoides
Burhinus capensis
Burhinus vermiculatus
Bycanistes bucinator
Chrysococcyx caprius
Chrysococcyx klaas
Coracias caudate
Corvus albicollis
Corvus albus
Corythaixoides concolor
Eremopterix leucotis
Falco biarmicus
Falco chicquera
Francolinus afer
Francolinus coqui
Gallinula chloropus
Gallirex porphyreolophus
Glaucidium capense
Haliaeetus vocifer
Hirundo abyssinica
Hirundo fuligula
Hirundo smithii
Hydroprogne caspia
Indicator indicator
Kaupifalco monogrammicus
Lophaetus occipitalis
Merops pusillus
Merops superciliosus
Micronisus gabar
Otus senegalensis
Phoeniculus purpureus
Pogoniulus bilineatus
Poicephalus cryptoxanthus
Polyboroides typus
Porphyrio porphyrio
Rhinopomastus cyanomelas
Sterna sandvicensis
Streptopelia capicola
Streptopelia senegalensis
Terathopius ecaudatus
Shy Albatross
African Wood Owl
African Jacana
Black Crake
Narina Trogon
Little Swift
Cuckoo Hawk
Spotted Thick-knee
Water Thick-knee
Trumpeter Hornbill
Diderick Cuckoo
Klaas’s Cuckoo
Lilac-breasted Roller
White-necked Raven
Pied Crow
Grey Go-away-bird
Chestnut-backed Sparrowlark
Lanner Falcon
Rednecked Falcon
Rednecked Francolin
Coqui Francolin
Common Moorhen
Purplecrested Turaco
African Barred Owlet
African Fish Eagle
Lesser Striped Swallow
Rock Martin
Wire-tailed Swallow
Caspian Tern
Greater Honeyguide
Lizard Buzzard
Longcreasted Eagle
Little-Bee-eater
Madagascar Bee-eater
Gabar Goshawk
African Scops Owl
Green Wood-Hoopoe
Yellow-rumped Tinkerbird
Brownheaded Parrot
African Harrier-Hawk
Purple Swamphen
Common Scimitarbill
Sandwich Tern
Cape Turtle-Dove
Laughing Dove
Bateleur
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
Thripias namaquus
Tockus alboterminatus
Turtur chalcospilos
Tyto alba
Upupa africana
Colius striatus
Passer domesticus
Puffinus pacificus
Aquila wahlbergi
Cisticola galactotes
Hirundo albigularis
Mirafra sabota
Tricholaema leucomelas
Actitis hypoleucos
Apus apus
Aquila nipalensis
Aquila pomarina
Arenaria interpres
Calidris alba
Calidris ferruginea
Calidris minuta
Caprimulgus europaeus
Charadrius hiaticula
Charadrius leschenaultii
Charadrius mongolus
Chlidonias hybridus
Chlidonias leucopterus
Ciconia ciconia
Circus aeruginosus
Circus macrourus
Circus pygargus
Coracias garrulus
Cuculus canorus
Falco amurensis
Falco concolor
Falco naumanni
Falco subbuteo
Falco vespertinus
Hieraaetus pennatus
Limosa lapponica
Limosa limosa
Milvus migrans
Numenius arquata
Numenius phaeopus
Pandion haliaetus
Pernis apivorus
Bearded Woodpecker
Crowned Hornbill
Emerald-spotted Wood-Dove
Barn Owl
African Hoopoe
Speckled Mousebird
House Sparrow
Wedge-tailed Shearwater
Wahlberg's Eagle
Rufous-winged Cisticola
Whitethroated Swallow
Sabota Lark
Acacia Pied Barbet
Common Sandpiper
Common Swift
Steppe Eagle
Lesser Spotted Eagle
Ruddy Turnstone
Sanderling
Curlew Sandpiper
Little Stint
European Nightjar
Common Ringed Plover
Greater Sand Plover
Mongolian Sand Plover
Whiskered Tern
White-winged Tern
White Stork
Western Marsh-Harrier
Pallid Harrier
Montagu's Harrier
European Roller
Common Cuckoo
Amur Falcon
Sooty Falcon
Lesser Kestrel
Eurasian Hobby
Red-footed Falcon
Booted Eagle
Bar-tailed Godwit
Black-tailed Godwit
Black Kite
Eurasian Curlew
Common Whimbrel
Osprey
Honey Buzzard
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
Philomachus pugnax
Pluvialis squatarola
Porzana porzana
Sterna hirundo
Tringa glareola
Tringa nebularia
Tringa stagnatilis
Xenus cinereus
Diodema exultans
Fregata ariel
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus
Bucorvus leadbeateri
Campethera cailliautii
Cypsiurus parvus
Schoutedenapus myoptilus
Polmaetus belicosus
Egretta gularis
Calidris canutus
Calidris ruficollis
Haematopus ostralegus
Larus fuscus
Bulweria fallaz
Fregetta tropica
Phaethon rubricauda
Puffinius carneipes
Sula sula
Egretta dimorpha
Heliolais erythroptera
Trochocercus cyanomelas
Accipiter melanoleucus
Accipiter minullus
Acrocephalus arundinaceus
Alcedo cristata
Alcedo semitorquata
Alopochen aegyptiacus
Amadina fasciata
Amandava subflava
Amblyospiza albifrons
Anaplectes rubriceps
Anas erythrorhyncha
Anas hottentota
Anas sparsa
Anastomus lamelligerus
Anous tenuirostris
Anthoscopus caroli
Anthreptes collaris
Ruff
Grey Plover
Spotted Crake
Common Tern
Wood Sandpiper
Common Greenshank
Marsh Sandpiper
Terek Sandpiper
Wandering Albatross
Lesser Figatebird
Sedge Warbler
Southern Ground-hornbill
Green-backed Woodpecker
Palm Swift
Scarce Swift
Martial Eagle
Western Reef Heron
Red Knot
Red-necked Stint
Eurasian Oystercatcher
Lesser Black-backed Gull
Jouanin's Petrel
Black-bellied Storm-petrel
Red-tailed Tropicbird
Flesh-footed Shearwater
Red-footed Booby
Dimorphic Egret
Red-winged Warbler
Blue-mantled Crested Flycatcher
Black Sparrowhawk
Little Sparrowhawk
Great Reed Warbler
Malachite Kingfisher
Half-collared Kingfisher
Egyptian Goose
Cut-throat Finch
Orange-breasted Waxbill
Thick-billed Weaver
Red-headed Weaver
Red-billed Teal
Hottentot Teal
African Black Duck
African Openbill
Lesser Noddy
Grey Penduline-Tit
Collared Sunbird
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
Anthreptes longuemarei
Anthreptes neglectus
Anthreptes reichenowi
Anthus cinnamomeus
Anthus lineiventris
Apalis flavida
Apus barbatus
Apus caffer
Aquila rapax
Ardeola ralloides
Ardeola rufiventris
Batis fratrum
Batis soror
Bias musicus
Bradornis pallidus
Bradypterus baboecala
Bubo lacteus
Buteo augur
Calamonastes stierlingi
Camaroptera brachyura
Campephaga flava
Campethera abingoni
Campethera scriptoricauda
Caprimulgus fossii
Caprimulgus tristigma
Centropus grillii
Cercotrichas leucophrys
Ceryle rudis
Ceuthmochares australis
Chalcomitra amethystina
Charadrius marginatus
Charadrius pallidus
Charadrius pecuarius
Charadrius tricollaris
Chrysococcyx cupreus
Cichladusa arquata
Ciconia abdimii
Cinnyricinclus leucogaster
Cinnyris manoensis
Circaetus cinerascens
Circaetus cinereus
Circaetus fasciolatus
Circaetus pectoralis
Circus ranivorus
Cisticola aberrans
Cisticola brachypterus
Western Violet-backed Sunbird
Ulunguru violet-backed Sunbird
Plain-backed Sunbird
African Pipit
Striped Pipit
Yellow-breasted Apalis
Black Swift
White-rumped Swift
Tawny Eagle
Madagascar Pond Heron
Rufous-bellied Heron
Woodward's Batis
Pale Batis
Black-and-white Flycatcher
Pale Flycatcher
Little Rush-Warbler
Verreaux's Eagle-Owl
Augur Buzzard
Stierling's Wren-Warbler
Green-backed Camaroptera
Black Cuckooshrike
Golden-tailed Woodpecker
Speckle-throated Woodpecker
Square-tailed Nightjar
Freckled Nightjar
Black Coucal
White-browed Scrub-Robin
Pied Kingfisher
Green Malkoha
Amethyst Sunbird
White-fronted Plover
Chestnut-banded Plover
Kittlitz’s Plover
Three-banded Plover
African Emerald Cuckoo
Collared Palm Thrush
Abdim's Stork
Violet-backed Starling
Miombo Double-collared Sunbird
Western Banded Snake-eagle
Brown Snake-Eagle
Southern Banded Snake-eagle
Black-chested Snake-Eagle
African Marsh-Harrier
Lazy Cisticola
Short-winged Cisticola
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
Cisticola fulvicapillus
Cisticola natalensis
Clamator glandarius
Coracias spatulata
Coracina caesia
Coracina pectoralis
Cossypha heuglini
Coturnix adansonii
Coturnix delegorguei
Creatophora cinerea
Crecopsis egregia
Crex crex
Cuculus gularis
Cuculus poliocephalus
Cuculus rochii
Cuculus solitarius
Cursorius temminckii
Cyanomitra olivacea
Dendrocygna bicolor
Dendrocygna viduata
Dendropicos fuscescens
Elanus caeruleus
Emberiza cabanisi
Emberiza capensis(ss vincenti)
Emberiza flaviventris
Emberiza tahapisi
Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis
Estrilda astrild
Euplectes albonotatus
Euplectes axillaris
Euplectes capensis
Euplectes hordeaceus
Euplectes macrourus
Euplectes nigroventris
Euplectes orix
Eurystomus glaucurus
Falco cuvierii
Falco dickinsoni
Falco peregrinus
Falco t. rufescens
Fulica cristata
Gallinula angulata
Glareola pratincola
Glaucidium perlatum
Guttera pucherani
Gypohierax angolensis
Neddicky
Croaking Cisticola
Great Spotted Cuckoo
Racket-tailed Roller
Grey Cuckoo-shrike
White-breasted Cuckooshrike
White-browed Robin-Chat
Blue Quail
Harlequin Quail
Wattled Starling
African Crake
Corncrake
African Cuckoo
Lesser Cuckoo
Madagascar Cuckoo
Red-chested Cuckoo
Temminck's Courser
Eastern Olive Sunbird
Fulvous Whistling-Duck
White-faced Whistling-Duck
Cardinal Woodpecker
Black-shouldered Kite
Cabanis's Bunting
Cape Bunting
Goldenbreasted Bunting
Cinnamon-breasted Bunting
Saddle-billed Stork
Common Waxbill
White-winged Widowbird
Fan-tailed Widowbird
Yellow Bishop
Black-winged Bishop
Yellow-mantled Widowbird
Zanzibar Red Bishop
Southern Red Bishop
Broad-billed Roller
African Hobby
Dicknson’s Kestrel
Peregrine Falcon
Common Kestrel
Red-knobbed Coot
Lesser Moorhen
Collared Pratincole
Pearl-spotted Owlet
Crested Guineafowl
Palm-nut Vulture
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
Halcyon albiventris
Halcyon chelicuti
Halcyon leucocephala
Halcyon senegalensis
Halcyon senegaloides
Hieraaetus ayresii
Hieraaetus spilogaster
Himantopus himantopus
Hirundo senegalensis
Hyliota flavigaster
Hypargos niveoguttatus
Indicator minor
Indicator variegatus
Ispidina picta
Ixobrychus minutus
Ixobrychus sturmi
Lagonosticta rhodopareia
Lagonosticta senegala
Lamprotornis corruscus
Lanius minor
Larus cirrocephalus
Leptoptilos crumeniferus
Lissotis melanogaster
Lonchura cucullata
Lonchura fringilloides
Lonchura nigriceps
Lybius melanopterus
Lybius torquatus
Macheiramphus alcinus
Macrodipteryx vexillarius
Macronyx croceus
Mandingoa nitidula
Megaceryle maxima
Merops boehmi
Merops nubicus
Mirafra rufocinnamomea
Muscicapa caerulescens
Mycteria ibis
Myioparus plumbeus
Myrmecocichla arnotti
Neafrapus boehmi
Necrosyrtes monachus
Nectarinia bifasciata
Nectarinia senegalensis
Nectarinia venusta
Nectarinia veroxii
Brown-hooded Kingfisher
Striped Kingfisher
Grey-headed Kingfisher
Woodland Kingfisher
Mangrove Kingfisher
Ayres' Hawk-Eagle
African Hawk-Eagle
Black-winged Stilt
Mosque Swallow
Yellow-bellied Hyliota
Red-throated Twinspot
Lesser Honeyguide
Scaly-throated Honeyguide
African Pygmy-Kingfisher
Little Bittern
Dwarf Bittern
Jameson’s Firefinch
Red-billed Firefinch
Black-bellied Starling
Lesser Grey Shrike
Grey-headed Gull
Marabou Stork
Black-bellied Bustard
Bronze Mannikin
Magpie Mannikin
Red-backed Mannikin
Brown - breasted Barbet
Black-collared Barbet
Bat Hawk
Pennant-winged Nightjar
Yellow-throated Longclaw
Green Twinspot
Giant Kingfisher
Bohm's Bee-eater
Northern Carmine Bee-eater
Flappet Lark
Ashy Flycatcher
Yellow-billed Stork
Grey Tit-Flycatcher
Arnott's Chat
Bohm's Spinetail
Hooded Vulture
Purple-banded Sunbird
Scarlet-chested Sunbird
Variable Sunbird
Grey Sunbird
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
Nettapus auritus
Nicator gularis
Numida meleagris
Nycticorax nycticorax
Oena capensis
Oenanthe oenanthe
Onychognathus morio
Oriolus auratus
Oriolus larvatus
Oxylophus jacobinus
Oxylophus levaillantii
Pachycoccyx audeberti
Passer diffusus
Pelecanus Onocrotalus
Pelecanus rufescens
Petronia superciliaris
Phedina borbonica
Phyllastrephus fischeri
Phyllastrephus terrestris
Pitta angolensis
Platalea alba
Plectropterus gambensis
Plegadis falcinellus
Ploceus bicolor
Ploceus cucullatus
Ploceus intermedius
Ploceus ocularis
Ploceus subaureus
Ploceus xanthops
Ploceus xanthopterus
Pogoniulus chrysoconus
Pogoniulus simplex
Poicephalus suahelicus
Porphyrio alleni
Porzana pusilla
Prionops scopifrons
Psalidoprocne orientalis
Ptilopsus granti
Pyrenestes minor
Pytilia afra
Pytilia melba
Quelea erythrops
Quelea quelea
Rallus caerulescens
Rhinoptilus chalcopterus
Riparia cincta
African Pygmy-goose
Eastern Nicator
Helmeted Guineafowl
Black-crowned Night-heron
Namaqua Dove
Northern Wheatear
Red-winged Starling
African Golden Oriole
Blackheaded Oriole
Jacobin Cuckoo
Levaillant's Cuckoo
Thick-billed Cuckoo
Southern Grey-headed Sparrow
Great white pelican
Pink-backed Pelican
Yellow-throated Petronia
Mascarene Martin
Fischer's Greenbul
Terrestrial Brownbul
African Pitta
African Spoonbill
Spur-winged Goose
Glossy Ibis
Dark-backed Weaver
Village Weaver
Lesser Masked-Weaver
Spectacled Weaver
Yellow Weaver
Golden Weaver
Southern Brown-throated Weaver
Yellow-fronted Tinkerbird
Green Tinkerbird
Grey-headed Parrot
Allen's Gallinule
Baillon's Crake
Chestnut-fronted Helmet-Shrike
Eastern Saw-wing
Southern White-faced Scops-Owl
Lesser Seedcracker
Orange-winged Pytilia
Green-winged Pytilia
Red-headed Quelea
Red-billed Quelea
African Rail
Bronze-winged Courser
Banded Martin
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
Riparia paludicola
Rostratula benghalensis
Rynchops flavirostris
Sagittarius serpentarius
Sarkidiornis melanotos
Sarothrura elegans
Serinus mozambicus
Serinus reichardi
Serinus sulphuratus
Smithornis capensis
Stephanoaetus coronatus
Sterna albifrons
Sterna bengalensis
Sterna bergii
Sterna fuscata
Sterna nilotica
Sterna saundersi
Streptopelia decipiens
Tachymarptis aequatorialis
Tauraco livingstonii
Telacanthura ussheri
Telophorus nigrifrons
Terpsiphone viridis
Thalassornis leuconotus
Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris
Threskiornis aethiopicus
Tockus nasutus
Tockus pallidirostris
Torgos tracheliotus
Turdus libonyanus
Turnix sylvatica
Uraeginthus angolensis
Vidua chalybeata
Vidua macroura
Vidua obtusa
Vidua paradisaea
Zosterops senegalensis
Plain Martin
Greater Painted Snipe
African Skimmer
Secretary-bird
Comb Duck
Buff-spotted Flufftail
Yellow-fronted Canary
Reichard's Seed-eater
Brimstone Canary
African Broadbill
African Crowned Eagle
Little Tern
Lesser-crested Tern
Swift Tern
Sooty Tern
Gull-billed Tern
Saunders Tern
African Mourning Dove
Mottled Swift
Livingstone's Turaco
Mottled Spinetail
Black-fronted Bush-Shrike
African Paradise-Flycatcher
White-backed Duck
Mocking Cliff-Chat
African Sacred Ibis
African Grey Hornbill
Pale-billed Hornbill
Lappet-faced Vulture
Kurrichane Thrush
Kurrichane Buttonquail
Blue Waxbill
Village Indigobird
Pin-tailed Whydah
Broad-tailed Paradise-Whydah
Eastern Paradise-Whydah
African Yellow White-eye