Survey of population status of Francois` Langur in Ba Be National Park

Transcription

People Resources and Conservation Foundation
Survey of Population Status of Francois’ Langur
Ba Be National Park, Bac Kan Province, Vietnam
Hanoi, May 2009
Executive Summary
The objective of this document is to report on a 2009 Status Survey of the endangered
(IUCN, 2008) Francois’ Langur (Trachypithecus francoisi) at Ba Be National Park. The
objective of the Status Survey itself is to provide adequate field data to develop a
Conservation Action Plan for the species within the national park greater landscape, and to
design a long term monitoring program for the species at the site.
The Status Survey was carried out between 13 and 26 Feb 2009 at two possible occurrence
areas of the Francois’ Langur: Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi in Ba Be National Park. The sites
were selected based on reliable local reports. With a total of 14 field survey days, a survey
team of four people (one researcher from Forestry University and three national park staff)
spent about 145 hours searching for the Langurs, covering an area of about 29 km2.
Sighting of Francois’ was rare in surveyed areas, with only one group of four individuals
detected in Pắc Ngòi. Although a group of six-to-thirteen animals is likely to exist in Đầu
Đẳng area, based on previous local reports. This group was not seen. Six mammals and
16 birds were recoded from areas surveyed. Direct animal observations were surprisingly
rare. Most records were based on indirect evidences such as faeces and vocalizations.
Like other primate populations, hunting and habitat destruction are main threats to the
Francois’ Langur species and its habitat. Illegal logging poses a serious threat to the critical
habitat of the leaf monkey, while shotguns and traps were identified as the main methods for
hunting in the area. Logging and hunting activities often occur in remote and difficult to
access areas where control of forest rangers is irregular, due to limited number of staff.
H’mong people from Nam Dai and Dan May, and local people from Nam Cuong Village are
identified as the target hunters and loggers.
The Francoi’s Langur survey included members of Ba Be National Park. Involvement of
park staff is believed to play an important role in the long-term success of a conservation
strategy for the species in the park landscape. By such involvement, we hope to strengthen
their capacity to continue with research and conservation activities leading to a better
understanding of the species. This will also help to improve the appreciation of biodiversity
conservation amongst the stakeholder communities, thus helping to meet the long-term
conservation program in Ba Be National Park. Two national park rangers and one technical
staff were trained in basic field techniques. These techniques include map and compass
reading, using GPS, note taking, data recording, and observation skills. Later, knowledge
on these techniques will prove useful to apply monitoring activities for the species.
The report outlines actions that are needed to address the immediate threats to the species
at the national park. These recommendations will be used as guidelines for developing a
Conservation Action Plan for Francois’ Langur in Ba Be National Park. A follow-up survey
will be needed to re-examine areas where no leaf monkeys were found, but correspond to
observations of the species by local communities and national park rangers.
PRCF Francois’ Langur Survey
Ba Be National Park – Vietnam, Page 1/36
Acknowledgements
Dong Thanh Hai, the Francois’ Langur surveyor and author of this document, would like to
thank Ba Be National Park Director Nong The Dien and Vice Director Nong Dinh Khue for
their permission and support to undertake this survey. Special thanks go to Pham Van Nam,
the Ba Be National Park Technical Department staff, for his dedication, support, and
assistance during the conduction of this survey. I am grateful to all the park and forest
rangers for their assistance.
I would also like to thank all the trainees: Pham Van Nam, Duong Hong Hai, and Duong
Xuan Tu, who dedicated their time and supported this survey. Thanks also go to Be Thien
Nghiem, who provided invaluable assistance in arranging campsites during the survey.
I am grateful to Fernando Potess and Paul Insua-Cao from the People Resources and
Conservation Foundation, for inviting me to conduct this survey. I also would like to thank to
Nguyen Quynh Nga, Dang Van Sang, and Nong Van Hoat for logistical arrangements and
otherwise assistance.
Finally I would like to thank all the guides and porters who helped in the survey, and to
households from Ba Be Lake lakeside villagers who provided information and supported with
accommodation to the survey team.
Twycross Zoo Conservation Welfare Fund provided financial support.
This report is prepared for the People Resources and Conservation Foundation (PRCF), within the framework of
the PRCF Vietnam Program, funded by the PRCF and several international donor organizations, in particular the
Twycross Zoo Conservation Welfare Fund.
Citation:
Surveyor:
Project
Coordinators:
Project Team:
Project Funding:
Copyright:
Photo Credit:
Available from:
Dong Thanh Hai, 2009, Survey of Population Status of Francois’ Langur, Ba Be National Park,
Bac Kan Province, Vietnam. People Resources and Conservation Foundation (PRCF) Vietnam
Program, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Dong Thanh Hai
L. Fernando Potess, PRCF President Director/ Chief Executive Officer
Paul Insua-Cao, FFI Vietnam Primate Programme/ PRCF Environmental Associate
Dong Thanh Hai (Surveyor), Pham Van Nam, Pham Van Nam, Duong Hong Hai, (Ba Be National
Park), and Duong Xuan Tu, Be Thien Nghiem (Villagers).
Twycross Zoo Conservation Welfare Fund and People Resources and Conservation Foundation
People Resources and Conservation Foundation (PRCF) 2009
Xu Jianming 2008 (Copyright)
www.prcf-alliance.org
Table of Contents
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4
2. Goals and objectives ........................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Goal.................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Specific objectives ........................................................................................................... 4
3. Description of survey area .................................................................................................. 5
3.1. Location ........................................................................................................................... 5
3.2. Topography ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.3. Climate and hydrology..................................................................................................... 5
3.4. Flora ................................................................................................................................. 5
3.5. Fauna................................................................................................................................ 5
3.6. People............................................................................................................................... 6
4. Methods .............................................................................................................................. 6
4.1. Selection of survey sites................................................................................................... 6
4.2. Time and duration of the survey ...................................................................................... 6
4.3. Survey effort .................................................................................................................... 7
4.4. Campsites......................................................................................................................... 7
4.5. Interview .......................................................................................................................... 7
4.6. Data collection ................................................................................................................. 8
4.7. Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 10
5. Results............................................................................................................................... 10
5.1. Distribution, group size and composition of Francois’ Langur ..................................... 10
5.2. Sleeping sites ................................................................................................................. 10
5.3. Responding behavior upon encounter............................................................................ 10
5.4. Threats to Francois’ Langur........................................................................................... 11
5.5. Threats analysis.............................................................................................................. 15
5.6. Training.......................................................................................................................... 18
5.7. Other wildlife ................................................................................................................. 18
6. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 19
6.1. Population status ............................................................................................................ 19
6.2. Threats to Francois’ Langur........................................................................................... 20
7. Recommendations............................................................................................................. 21
7.1. Locate remaining populations of Francois’ Langur in the Park..................................... 21
7.2. Suppress all killing of Francois’ Langur in the Park...................................................... 21
7.3. Improve protection for Francois’ Langur habitat........................................................... 22
7.4. Establish long-term monitoring for the Francois’ Langur population ........................... 22
7.5. Increase public awareness for Francois’ Langur conservation ...................................... 23
7.6. Conduct long-term research on Francois’ Langur ecology and behaviour .................... 23
8. Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix............................................................................................................................... 29
1. Introduction
The Francois’ Langur (Trachypithecus francoisi) is an endangered primate (IUCN, 2008)
belonging to subfamily Colobinae. The species is protected under Viet Nam Decree
48/2002/ND-CP and is classified as “Endangered” (Anon 2000), but is now considered to be
“Critically Endangered” (Nadler et al. 2002).
The leaf monkey ranges from the Red River in Vietnam across the Chinese border to as far
as the Daming Hills in Guangxi and Xingyi in Guizhou, it is restricted to habitats
characterized by karst topography with plentiful cliffs (Groves, 2001). It occurs in south
China and northern Vietnam. The species was historically widespread in seven northern
provinces of Viet Nam (Lang Son, Cao Bang, Thai Nguyen, Bac Kan, Ha Giang, Tuyen
Quang and Lao Cai Provinces) (Pham Nhat 2002). Due to intensive habitat loss and hunting
for food and commercial sale, populations now only occur in four provinces (Lang Son, Ha
Giang, Bac Kan and Tuyen Quang Provinces) (Pham Nhat 2002; Nadler et al. 2002). All
remaining populations are small (<50 individuals), isolated, and vulnerable to extinction
(Nadler et al. 2002). Francois’ Langur population estimates for China are of about 1,400 to
1,650 individuals (IUCN, 2008), whereas the remaining population in Vietnam is estimated
as less than 300 individuals (Nadler et al., 2003). Main threats to the Langur are hunting
and habitat destruction (Hu et al., 2004; Li et al., 2007; Nadler et al., 2003).
Ba Be National Park is located in Vietnam’s northern mountains, and is a home to several
small groups of Francois’ Langur. According to previous reports, the maximum number of
individuals in a group recorded in Ba Be National Park did not exceed six individuals (Nadler
et al., 2003). However, verbal reports from local communities indicated the existence of
about 13 individuals in the Đầu Đẳng karst massif (Potess, pers. comm.). A survey on the
population status of Francois’ Langur in Ba Be will help provide adequate data to develop a
Conservation Action Plan for the species at site, and to design a long term monitoring
program for adaptive conservation management.
2. Goals and objectives
2.1. Goal
The goal of the survey is to provide adequate data to define a Conservation Action Plan for
the Trachipithecus francoisi population in Ba Be National Park.
2.2. Specific objectives
•
•
•
•
Determine population status of Trachipithecus francoisi at Ba Be National Park
Identify current threats to the species and its habitats
Train Ba Be National Park staff in basic field survey techniques
Provide recommendations for a Conservation Action Plan for the species at site
3. Description of survey area
3.1. Location
Ba Be National Park is located in Ba Be District, Bac Kan Province. The park covers an
area of 7,608 ha, with about 85% under forests. The national park is divided into three
functional zones, comprising a strict protection area of 3,226 ha, a forest rehabilitation area
of 4,082 ha, and administration area of 300 ha (Committee, 2001; Định, 2003).
3.2. Topography
Steep limestone hills and valleys characterize the topography of Ba Be National Park. The
elevation ranges between 150 m and 1,121 m, with the highest peak Cang Lo at 1,121 m.
Many limestone caves are found along the steep cliffs, with Puong Cave at 300 m in length
being the largest one.
3.3. Climate and hydrology
Ba Be National Park falls within he microclimate of the northeast region of Vietnam, four
distinct seasons (spring, summer, autumn, and winter) and influenced by the cold and dry
northeast winds during the dry season (from October to March). Mean monthly minimum
and maximum temperatures are recorded as 220o C and 390o C, respectively. Mean annual
humidity is reported as 83%. Mean annual rainfall is recorded as 1,378 mm (Định, 2003).
Ba Be Lake forests play an important role in watershed protection. Without this mosaic of
vegetation, slope lands would likely eroded due to intensive precipitation and the fresh water
storage capacity of the lake could be weakened by excessive sedimentation.
3.4. Flora
There are mainly three types of forest in Ba Be National Park: forests associated with
limestone hills and mountains, evergreen forests, and bamboo forests. Limestone forests
occupy most part of the park and feature thick plant cover, while evergreen forests are
distributed on low earthen hills covered with thicker soil layer. Species of low land forests
are more diverse than those found on limestone mountains. Flora comprises about 603
vascular species belonging to 137 families (Dinh, 2003). Dominant tree species include
Teonongia tonkinensis (Moraceae), an important element of the lower canopy, and
Burretoidendron hsienmu (Timaliaceae), common in upper canopy forests (Trai et al., 2004).
3.5. Fauna
The fauna of the Ba Be National Park is composed of 65 mammals, 214 birds, 46 reptiles
and amphibians, and 87 fish species (Định, 2003; Pham, 2003). Among the list, 55 species
have been recorded in Vietnam Red Book, especially the presence of endangered primates:
Francois’ Langur (Trachypithecus francoisi), creating the park becoming the nationally and
internationally more important conservation area.
3.6. People
Ethnic minority groups within the Ba Be National Park landscape include Tay, Nung, Dao,
and H’mong. These groups have lived for many years in villages of the buffer zone, and in
limestone mountain valleys or along the lake border. Paddy cultivation is a major economic
activity of these groups. However, land for agriculture is not sufficient and many of
communities rely on hunting and illegal forest extractions to support their living. Illegal
hunting activities also take place in the park’s buffer zone, and especially in villages located
along the main roads leading to the park center. The ethnic groups include (settling along
river, and lake occupied 44%), H’mong (on high mountains): 54% of population, Dao, Nung
and Kinh (2%). Each group has its own cultural characters. Tay people usually live in wood
stilt houses and maintain their livelihoods through fisheries and rice padi cultivation, and
H’mong people rely on upland crop cultivation and hunting (Committee, 2001).
4. Survey methods
4.1. Selection of survey sites
Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi were selected as the two main survey sites because of the
following reasons:
•
•
Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi are the two main parts of the national park that include
suitable habitat for the Francois’ Langur (the cliffs, caves, and limestone forests).
It was recently reported that local people and forest rangers saw groups of Francois
along the cliffs surrounding the Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi areas.
4.2 Time and duration of the survey
The survey was carried out between 13 and 26 Feb 2009 in Ba Be National Park. The focus
was on the two possible occurrence areas of Francois’ Langurs: Đầu Đẳng area (Khau Qua,
Nam Dai, and Khau Cum) and Pắc Ngòi area (Choc Thep, Na Phoon, and Lung Quang).
The survey team spent an equal period of time for each site (seven days). Name of the
areas surveyed, survey duration, and total area covered are shown in the table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Name, duration and locations of areas surveyed
Area Surveyed
Camp Location
(WGS84)
Survey Days
Covered
Area (km2)
Survey
Hours
Đầu Đẳng (Khau Qua, Nậm
Dài, and Khau Củm)
0561504 E
2480943 N
13 -19 Feb 2009
(7 days)
20
75
Pắc Ngòi (Chộc Thép, Nà
Phoòn, and Lùng Quang)
0564555 E
2476589 N
20-26 Feb 2009
(7 days)
9
70
4.3. Survey effort
The survey team including five people; one researcher from Forestry University, one
National Park staff, two National Park rangers, and one student from Forestry University.
The survey was carried over 14 days, with a total of about 145 hours spent searching for the
languor, and covered an area of about 29 km2 at the two selected sites (table 4.1; figure
4.1). Transects and vantage points were used to obtain data on presence/ absence,
sleeping sites, and threats to the species, as well as its habitat (see detailed methods in
section 4.6).
4.4. Campsites
Campsites were established inside the forests, allowing surveyors to search and observe
monkeys from dawn to dusk. However, because of scarcity of a good water sources at the
Pắc Ngòi area, the team survey moved camp to the Choc Thep Ranger Station, between the
Pắc Ngòi and Nam Cuong Ranger Stations. Camp locations are detailed in table 4.1.
4.5. Interviews
A range of local people, from villagers, hunters, rangers, to national park staff, were
interviewed before the surveys took place. Key informants were determined by who had
seen the Francois’ in recent times. The purpose of interviews was to collect general
information on the species in the target areal including number seen, area seen, and
frequency of sightings, diet, and habitat preferences.
Figure 4.1. Map of areas surveyed in Ba Be National Park
Interviewers with local communities included approaching key informants (mainly hunters,
forest harvesters) and asking questions to (a) Decrease the numbers of “no answer” and “do
not know”; (b) Allow additional probing by interviewer; (c) Allow clarification of questions;
and, (d) Allow interviewer to observe and judge the quality answers and the person being
interviewed (Rabinowitz, 1999). Verbal reports however, were used with care and only are
added to the dataset after further verification in the field. Pictures were also used during the
interviews to avoid confusion about local names of certain species.
4.6. Data collection
Species presence/absence surveys
Existing trails, transects, and reported sleeping sites were used to survey the presence/
absence of Francois’ Langur groups at the national park. Presence/ absence of the species
was determined from both direct and indirect evidence, such as (Ross & Reeve, 2003)
•
•
•
•
Direct observation of live animals
Indirect observation of signs (tracks, faeces, feeding signs, vocalizations, etc.)
Observation of animals captured or killed
Reports from local communities
Line-transect and reconnaissance or “recce” survey
Line-transect methods are generally considered to be the most efficient means of sampling
large areas and traditionally used for mammal surveys. However, use of line-transect
methods in the rain forest involves cutting lines through the vegetation following compass
bearings. Progress tends to be slow, and line-transect surveys are time-consuming and
relatively expensive. Furthermore, there are dangers associated with cutting trails into
isolated protected areas (White & Edwards, 2000).
A new survey method called reconnaissance (or “recce”), developed by White and Edwards
(2000), minimize the disadvantages of the line-transect methods. The advantages of “recce”
method it that it allows observers to follow pre-existing trails whenever possible and when
necessary cut a path of least resistance through forest vegetation, to work in smaller teams,
to travel faster (covering more ground), and to minimize the potential impact of their activities
in the area. The recce method can also be used during anti-poaching patrols, which tend to
proceed in roughly the same manner, permitting data collection for monitoring key animal
species alongside routine protection activities. However, recce surveys have the
disadvantage that they produce biased data because following existing human paths and
animal trails will not give a representative sample of habitat types and human impact in the
area (White & Edwards, 2000).
In this survey, we used both line-transect and recce methods to review the population status
of Francois’ Langur, as well as threats to the species and its habitat, at Ba Be National Park.
Group size and composition
Given the small populations of Francois’ Langur at Ba Be National Park, opportunistic
census was used to count the total the number of animals in groups as encountered. More
effort was paid to the sleeping sites early in the morning and late in the afternoon, since this
allowed observers to have good visible count of a whole group of monkeys, and to
determine their age, sex, and composition of the langur group.
Sleeping site surveys
Local reports, indirect and direct evidences, and follow-up field examinations were used to
determine the current sleeping sites of langurs at Ba Be National Park. Attempts were made
to search for Francois individuals in caves on the middle or tops of cliffs showing brown
deposits of Langur excrement just below the caves. GPS and topographic maps were used
to get locations and mark sleeping sites of the species on the map.
Threats
Information on the presence of traps/ snares, guns/ crossbows, camps, hunting dogs, forest
clearance, timber-cutting, huts, non-timber forest product collection, and livestock grazing
were recorded during daily surveys to assess the human impact on Francois’ Langur and its
habitat, as well as on wildlife as a whole.
Training programs
One technical staff of Ba Be National Park and two forest rangers from Đầu Đẳng and Pắc
Ngòi Station were recruited for training (Table 4.2). Training was conducted both in
classroom and “on the job.” Given the short duration and purpose of the survey, only one
day was spent on classroom training, prior to field surveys. The rest was “on the job”
training.
Training contents included map reading, and use of compasses, GPS, and other equipment
related to field survey such as binoculars, camera, data collection procedures, and
completion of data entry sheets. Details on training materials are given in Appendix III.
Table 4.2. List of trainees participating in training
No.
Name
Sources
1
Phạm Văn Nam
Technical Department, Ba Bể National Park
2
Dương Xuân Tứ
Đầu Đẳng ranger station, Ba Bể National Park
3
Dương Hồng Hải
Pắc Ngòi ranger station, Ba Bể National Park
4.7. Constraints
Dense vegetation and loose rock make observations and movement of the survey team very
difficult and time consuming. The undulating terrain of the study area is very steep and
rough in some areas making those areas virtually inaccessible. Lack of water sources inside
the forest made it very difficult for the survey team to approach to the Langur’s habitat in the
early morning, since base camps had to set up far away from monkey known habitat.
5. Results
5.1. Distribution, group size and composition of Francois’ Langur
Only one group of four T. Francois’ individuals was sighted on 22 February 2009 in the Pắc
Ngòi area (0564901 E – 2476206 N). The group included one adult male, one adult female,
one juvenile, and one infant. The actual group size is likely to be larger, since the observers
might have missed some animals hidden in the dense foliage. Based on local reports, there
seems there is another small group of four-to-six animals in Đầu Đẳng area, and another
group of six to eleven animals are located in Pắc Ngòi area. Location and group size of
seen Francois’ during the survey, and local people’s observation reports in recent months
are presented in Table 2, and locations depicted on the map in Figure 1.
5.2. Sleeping sites
No sleeping sites of the Francois’ Langurs were determined during the survey, though efforts
were made at dawn and dusk to search for possible sleeping sites, such as caves at middle
or top of the cliffs near deep brown deposits of Langur excrement in Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi
cliffs. One possible sleeping cave is located in Na Phoon area (0563541 E – 2475872 N),
where both local people and a forest ranger saw Langurs entering the cave last year (Tam,
Thanh, personal communication). However, the Langurs may have abandoned this sleeping
cave because of an ecotourism road to Na Phoon cave starting construction since 2008.
According to local people whose cornfields are close to the cave, they have not seen the
Langurs since the road initiated construction.
5.3. Responding behavior upon encounter
The survey team suddenly encountered the group of the Langurs at close distance (ca. 20
m) at 8.30 am, on the way from Pắc Ngòi to Nam Cuong. The monkeys appeared to detect
the observers first and fled away immediately in a northwest direction (approaching the cliff
site). Then, the whole group of the Langurs stopped and hid in the dense foliage of trees
close to the cliff. The observers stayed still and kept quiet for about 15 minutes, then
attempted to approach the Langurs’ at their resting trees. Again, the surveyors were
detected by an adult Francois’ female sitting close to the approaching direction (ca. 5-7m).
The adult female jumped to another tree and made soft alarm call “khooc.”
Right after, surveyors heard sounds of branch movements, an adult male and juvenile
climbed up to the deciduous tree and came close to the survey team’s hidden position (ca.
2-3 m). The adult male scanned around and looked aggressively at the team for few
seconds. He then made a loud alarm call “khooc,” jumped to another tree and fled away to
a nearby cliff. From this point, the whole group followed the adult male direction. The
juvenile and an infant with pelage of yellow and black were the last animals to leave the
resting trees. The total close contact was of about 45 minutes, of which seven minutes were
direct visible records.
Table 5.1. Location and group sizes of Francois’ Langur at Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi areas
No.
Date
Sites
1
Dec
2008
Jun
2008
10 Jan
2008
12 Jan
2008
22 Feb
2009
Na Phoòn
2
3
4
5
Na Phoòn
Đầu Đẳng
Đầu Đẳng
Pắc NgòiChộc Thép
Locations
(WGS84)
0563541E/
2475872N
0563541E/
2475872N
0560543E/
2482765N
0560543E/
2482765N
0564901E/
2476206N
Group
Size
4-6
Evidences
References
Sighting
11
Sighting
1 (4)
Sighting,
vocalization
Sighting,
vocalization
Sighting
Hoàng Phúc Thành, Nam
Cường Village
Nguyễn Văn Tám, Na
Bản Ranger Station
Đồng Văn Cừ, Đầu Đẳng
Village
Nông Thị Mợi, Đầu Đẳng
Village
This survey
4-6
4
5.4. Threats to Francois’ Langur
Information on the presence of human activity in forest areas subject to this survey was
recorded. Signs of human activity are grouped into two main categories: Hunting (hunters
encountered, gunshots heard, dogs, and campsites for hunting) and Habitat Destruction
(illegal logging, stacked timber, campsites for logging, livestock grazing and cutting trees for
grazing). A detail threat assessment to the Langur and other wildlife is given below.
Encounter rates of threats from surveys
To provide a measure, the relative abundance of the two threats, encounter rates per
kilometer walked were calculated for all signs of human activity. Signs of human activities
were categorized into Hunting and Habitat Destruction.
5.4.1. Hunting
Hunting activities appeared to remain in some parts of the two areas surveyed. Hunting
signs included hunters encountered, gunshots heard, dogs, used trails, and campsites for
hunting. Gunshots were heard during the first survey days in Đầu Đẳng area, and seemed
to reduce during the following days probably due to the presence of the surveyors and park
rangers in the forests. The survey team did not meet face to face with hunters in the forest,
but their voices and dog barks were heard at a close distance.
Several old hunting campsites were seen in the Đầu Đẳng area. A considerable number of
used trails by hunters and forest resource collectors were also seen in the forests surveyed.
Hunting signs were generally found in the more remote and difficult areas, holding better
habitat quality, and likely less intensively visited by park rangers. The relative intensity of
hunting signs seen in surveyed forests is presented in Figure 3.2. The figure shows that the
signs of hunting increased with increased distance from forest edges except for cliffs in both
areas surveyed. This is likely due, first; because hunters dare not hunt in forest edges due
where they are easily caught by park rangers, and secondly; because most large mammals
are now forced to live in remote and difficult areas--according to local reports. When
comparing the relative intensity of hunting signs between Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi. Đầu
Đẳng appeared to hold higher levels of hunting than Pắc Ngòi. A possible explanation for
this is that the Đầu Đẳng area is larger than that of Pắc Ngòi, and secondly it is easily to
access the Đầu Đẳng forest from Nậm Dài and Đán Mẩy villages where there are no forest
ranger stations.
According to forest rangers, hunters are generally H’mong people who live in or around the
park and other ethnic groups who live outside the park. For instance, hunting in the Đầu
Đẳng area mostly by H’mong people from Nậm Dài and Đán Mẩy villages, who live in the
west and southwest edges of the Đầu Đẳng area. For the Pắc Ngòi area, hunters are
mainly from Nam Cuong village that live outside the national park.
Direct evidence of killed Trachypithecus francoisi was not found during the survey. Local
people reported that they used to kill these monkeys for consumption of their meat and for
making a medicine from their bones, called “cao”. Illegal hunting of Francois’ Langur seems
to continue in the park.
According to local reports, at least two Francois’ individuals were killed last year in the Pắc
Ngòi area. The purpose of hunting the monkey may have changed from the past, as the
whole animal can be sold to the market at the price for VND 200.000 per kilogram (ca. USD
13.00/kg). It is also believed that T. francois' gall bladders are of better quality than those of
bears for customary medicinal purposes. These may create a demand for hunting T.
francoisi, decreasing in populations of T. francoisi in Ba Be National Park.
Figure 1. Hunting sign in each area surveyed (larger circles depict higher encounter rates)
5.4.2. Habitat destruction
Habitat destruction occurred in some parts of the forests surveyed and had impact on the
forest integrity as well as critical T. francoisi habitat. Signs of habitat destruction were cutting
trees for timber, stacked timber boards, campsites for logging, used trails for transporting
log, non-timber forest product collection, livestock grazing and cutting trees for grazing.
The encounter rates of illegal logging and livestock grazing at two areas surveyed are
presented in figure 5.2. The figure shows that Pắc Ngòi area appeared to have higher levels
of illegal logging than that in Đầu Đẳng. Both areas surveyed share common features in
livestock grazing that are taking place at abandoned cultivations and lower elevation in the
forest.
Figure 2. Logging sign in each of area surveyed (larger circles depict higher encounter rates)
Cutting trees for timbers and stacked timber boards were encountered along existing trails in
the forests, though this activity is illegal in the park. Much of the harvesting was carried out
using chainsaws rather than traditional method, pitsawing. The use of chainsaws may allow
cutters to harvest timbers with less time and manpower, lessening attention from forest
rangers.
Further, illegal logging often takes place at night or early morning and is very difficult to
control with small number of forest rangers have available to them. Consequently there was
evidence of illegal timber extraction in the forests surveyed. The trees cut are often large
and valuable timber species such as Tong Du (Toona sinensis), Nghien (Burretiodendron
hsienmu) that can be used for house building materials.
Livestock grazing and cutting trees for grazing are also having an impact on the habitats of
Trachypithecus francoisi and wildlife as a whole. It is clear that this activity is far less
widespread than hunting and illegal logging. Livestock grazing often takes place at
abandoned cultivations and lower elevation in the forest. The tree cut for grazing is often
Streblus brenieri.
5.5. Threats analysis
A number of approaches to measuring conservation success have been developed until
date. Biological indicators are traditional approaches that have generally involved collecting
data on specific biological indicators meant to represent biodiversity across a given
landscape. However, these approaches pose a number of challenges such as cost- and
time-intensive, problems in result interpretation.
A simple approach called “Threats Reduction Assessment (TRA)” has been developed to
measure conservation success in reducing threats to protected areas and to species within
protected areas (Margoluis & Salafsky, 2001). The aim of this method is to encourage
managers to assess how effective they are in tackling the major problems they are facing
while conserving the values of a protected area. The TRA method thus ranks each threat for
three criterions: AREA, INTENSITY, and UGENCY, defined as follows:
AREA:
The portion of habitats in the site that the threat will affect. Will it affect all of the
habitats at the site or just a small part?
ITENSITY: The impact or severity of destruction caused by the threat. Within the overall
area, will the threat completely destroy the habitat(s) or will it cause only minor
changes?
UGENCY: The immediacy of the threat. Is it a current threat? Will it occur only 25 years
from now?
Breaking the threat up into these three components helps managers think about the impact
of examined threats more carefully, by prioritizing these through the TRA ranking. The
assessment process then looks at how effectively can the threats be reduced over time
following prescribed management actions.
When ranking the threats at surveyed areas, the highest number is assigned to the threat
that affects the greatest area, while the lowest number (always #1), is assigned to the threat
that affects the smallest area. The largest number is assigned to the most intense threat,
and continued on downwards through the ranking to #1 for the least intense threat. The
highest number is assigned to the highest and most urgent threat and thereafter continued
down on the ranking sequence to that of #1 for the least urgent threat. After the ranking of
threats to each criterion, three rankings (AREA + INTENSITY + URGENCY) are added
across the columns to arrive at a total ranking. Threats with the highest total scores in the
rankings sequence are the ones that are assessed as having the greatest impact on the
forest integrity and contained species.
The ranking of threats to each area surveyed is presented in table 5.4 and 5.4. The higher
number the greater the impact, extent, and urgency of the threat. In general, both areas
surveyed shared three common threats to the species and its habitat, including cutting trees
for timber, stacked timber boards, and use of trails for hunting, although the priorities of
these threats were different between areas surveyed.
Cutting trees for timber has greatest impact on the forest integrity and species found within
them at both Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi. Stacked timber boards and use of trails for hunting
followed this. Livestock grazing, tourism, and road construction have lesser impact on the
species and its habitats since they took place at the edges of the forest.
Table 5.2. Ranking of threats in Đầu Đẳng area
No.
Threats
Hunting
1
Gunshots heard
2
Dogs
3
Campsites for hunting
4
Used trailed for hunting
Habitat destruction
5
Cutting trees for timber
6
Stacked timber boards
7
Campsites for logging
8
Used trails for logging
9
Livestock grazing
10
Cutting trees for grazing
Totals
Criteria rankings
Total
Rank
9
7
4
8
23
9
12
26
3
6
5
2
10
5
3
6
2
1
55
29
20
12
20
9
5
1
4
5
4
6
7
Area
Intensity
Urgency
7
1
5
10
7
1
3
8
9
6
4
8
3
2
55
10
9
5
6
4
2
55
Table 5.3. Ranking of threats in Pắc Ngòi area
No.
Threats
Hunting
1
Use of hunting trails
2
Traps
Habitat destruction
3
Cutting trees for timber
4
Stacked timber boards
5
Campsites for logging
6
Used trails for logging
7
Livestock grazing
8
Cutting trees for grazing
NTFP collection
9
General
Tourism
Road construction
Total
Criteria rankings
Total
Rank
Area
Intensity
Urgency
8
6
8
6
10
8
26
20
3
5
11
10
5
9
4
3
11
10
5
9
4
3
11
7
2
6
4
3
33
27
12
24
12
9
1
2
8
4
8
9
7
1
2
66
7
1
2
66
5
1
9
66
19
3
13
6
10
7
5.6. Training
Three trainees with forestry background participated in the training. They had more or less
basic knowledge and skills of field techniques prior to this survey. Interest and attitude of
trainees towards field activities were reflected by their dedication and teamwork, as well as
completeness of given exercises.
5.6.1. Map, compass and GPS use
All trainees had theoretical knowledge and some skills in mapping, compass usage, and
GPS use before the survey. This was a great advantage for training activities conducted in
both in the classroom and “on the job” through the survey exercise.
However, most trainees appeared confused when using field equipment in the field practice,
except for Mr. Nam who has higher educational and relevant background than others. For
instance, trainees were confused on how to determine accurate compass bearings on
objects flagged by the trainer; how to determine locations on the topographic map based on
GPS reading; and how to measure distances between mark points on the given map.
Therefore, the survey team spent a whole of the first field day to conduct re-training to
master these skills. Further, these skills were repeatedly practiced during the next field
days. By the end of field training, all trainees were capable of using field equipment.
5.6.2. Data collection
Field observation and information recording skills were gradually improved by trainees with
time. Skills gained during field training appeared to vary slightly among trainees. Mr. Hai
was good at wildlife identification, based on both direct and indirect evidences, whereas Mr.
Nam and Mr. Tu seemed to be competent in data recording.
5.7. Other wildlife
The presence of other wildlife, except for Francois’ Langur, was recorded opportunistically
during the surveys. A total of six mammals and 16 birds were recorded from the area
(Appendix I and II).
Densities of large mammals were generally low. Direct observations of animals were rare.
Most animals were recorded through indirect evidences such as faeces. Only a group of four
individuals of Assamese Macaque (Macaca assamensis) was seen one time at a Đầu Đẳng
cliff during their feeding time. Fresh faeces of Serow (Naemorhedus (Capricornis)
sumatraensis) were also observed one time at an elevation of 800 m asl near Đầu Đẳng cliff.
6. Discussion
6.1. Population status
Little information is available on the distribution, group number, and size of Francois’ Langur
at Ba Be National Park, and non has been published to date.
Historically, Francois’ Langur was found in some areas at Ba Be National Park (Table 4.1).
It seems that their distribution is now restricted to two areas: Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi.
Group size and density of Francois’ Langur in areas surveyed also appear to be extremely
low compared with those in China. The mean group size of Francois’ Langur in China is
seven (Li, Huang, Ding, Tang, & Wood, 2007) and mean densities are 0.6-1.2 individuals per
km2 (Hu, Dong, Wei, Zhu, & Duan, 2004).
Previous and current data collected during 14 field days do not allow us to provide a trend in
extant populations in the areas surveyed. However, current evidence may indicate that the
populations of Francois’ Langur in these areas are likely decreasing. For example, no
sighting of Francois’ Langur in Đầu Đẳng area and only a group of four animals were seen in
Pắc Ngòi area. Further, encounter rates of human signs in the forest are high (see detailed
discussion below) and this may create pressure on remaining small populations of Francois’
Langur at Ba Be National Park.
Table 6.1. Historical records of Francois’ Langur at Ba Be National Park
Year
Sites
No. of groups
Group size References
1989
Dan Dang
?
?
Ratajszczak et al. (1990)
1994
Puong
?
?
Kemp et al., (1994) cited as Nadler,
Grotto
et al., (2003)
1996
Nậm Dài
1
4-5
2000
Pắc Ngòi
1
6
Hill et al. (1996)
Dien, T.N., pers.comm. 2000 cites as
Nadler, et al., (2003)
2004
Đầu Đẳng
1
13
Potess, F., pers. comm.2009
2009
Đầu Đẳng
1
4-6
Moi, T.N., pers.comm.2009
Pắc Ngòi
1
4
Current survey
6.2. Threats to Francois’ Langur
Threats to Francois’ Langur and its habitats are obvious in both areas surveyed. Hunting
and habitat destruction were identified as the main threats to the species.
Hunting has long been recognized as a threat to primate populations (Mittermeier, 1987).
Hunting Francois’ Langur for meat and traditional medicine has been recorded in previous
reports (Dang, Nghia, & Lam, 2006; Li, Huang, Ding, Tang, & Wood, 2007; Nadler,
Momberg, Nguyen, & Lormee, 2003). These may be true for Francois’ Langur at Ba Be
National Park. Although there was no direct evidence of hunting Francois’ Langur during the
survey, according to local reports the species used to kill for food and traditional medicine.
Like other primates, Francois’ Langur is usually shot or trapped (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000;
Hu, Dong, Wei, Zhu, & Duan, 2004; Li, Huang, Ding, Tang, & Wood, 2007). Shotguns were
used for shooting Francois’ Langur in areas surveyed; through it is illegal in the national
park. Traps of Francois’ Langur have not previously been reported at Ba Be National Park;
according to local reports one Francois’ individual was trapped last year in Pắc Ngòi area. If
that is the case, hunting poses a serious threat to the remaining population of Francois’ in
surveyed areas. Li, at al. (2007) (Li, Huang, Ding, Tang, & Wood, 2007) claimed that a
whole group of the Langur may be caught by blocking the entrance to corresponding
sleeping caves.
Hunting poses a serious risk of extinction for a considerable number of the world’s primate
populations (Mittermeier, 1987; Mittermeier & Cheney, 1987) and may be the key threat for
rare species that are restricted to small areas of protected habitat (Bleisch & Zhang, 2004).
The population of Francois’ at the surveyed areas is not exceptional. No sighting of Langurs
at Đầu Đẳng area and only a group of four animals was seen in Pắc Ngòi. This is evidence
of population decline. Hunting also can influence population size, population structure, and
the behavior of individuals within populations (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000). Densities of
primates tend to be lowest where hunting intensity is greatest. Hunting intensity is frequently
co-varied with the human accessibility to forests. This is may be an answer for future
conservation activities at surveyed areas with Francois’, where forests can easily accessed.
Habitat destruction is also an important factor contributing to the decline in Vietnam primates
(Bleisch & Zhang, 2004), and the world’s primate populations as a whole (Mittermeier &
Cheney, 1987). Habitat destruction generally can take in the forms of logging, subsistence
farming, grazing, firewood collection, non-timber forest product collection (Mittermeier &
Cheney, 1987). It is documented that that habitat destruction can lead to forest loss,
fragmentation, and modification, therefore influencing on population viability in primates
(Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 1995), home range and species extinction risk
(Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000).
Habitat destruction in surveyed areas is mainly due to illegal logging and livestock grazing.
Although the survey team was not able to assess the long-term impact of these activities on
Francois’ Langur during the short survey, it is evident that disturbance and openings are
created in the surveyed forests. Logging is known to alter activity patterns and thus
densities of primates, as documented by Johns, 1986; Plumptre, Cox, & Mugume, 2003.
The densities of chimpanzees in logged forest is often lower than in mature forest (Plumptre
& Reynolds, 1994). Hylobates lar and Presbytis melalophos shows alterations in activity
budgets following logging, spending more time resting and less time feeding and travelling.
These changes may be attributable to the reduction in the availability of their preferred, more
nutritious foods (Johns, 1986).
7. Recommendations
To conserve the extant population of Francois’ Langur at Ba Be National Park, a number of
conservation actions must target threats listed in Table 4.3 and 4.4. Actions needed to
reduce the impacts of these threats are what will form the basis of a strategic action plan for
conservation of the Francois’ Langur population at Ba Be National Park. The following
recommendations could be considered under the Conservation Action Plan, as actions that
would reduce the threats observed by the survey team.
7.1. Locate remaining populations of Francois’ Langur in the Park
Issues
1. Lack of information on the status of Francois’ population in the Park
2. Lack of information on distribution of Francois’ population in the Park
3. Lack of information on critical habitats of Francois’ population in the Park
Action needed
1. Conduct additional surveys on population status of Francois’ across all Park forests
2. Produce distribution map of Francois’ Langur in the Park
3. Identify critical sites for conservation of Francois’ Langur in the Park
7.2. Suppress all killing of Francois’ Langur in the Park
Issues
1. Shotguns were the main method for killing Francois’ Langur in the Park
2. Most hunters were from Nam Dai, Dan May and Nam Cuong Villages
3. Hunting signs were often found in remote and difficult areas
Action needed
1. Continue gun confiscated programs in identified villages above with regular law
enforcement patrols
2. Conduct programs that target hunters living in Nam Dai, Dan May and Nam Cuong
Villages to provide alternative livelihood options
3. Conduct patrols in remote and difficult areas where Francois’ Langur and large
mammals are existing and tend to be higher in density
4. Conduct raising awareness and conservation education programs with prioritizing for
villages that listed above.
5. Recruit and train local people to join patrol and monitoring programs of Francois’
Langur
7.3. Improve protection for Francois’ Langur habitat
Issues
1. Illegal logging is still going on in the Park
2. Livestock grazing in the forests during non-crop season is common tradition of ethnic
communities in the park
3. Non-timber forest product collection (NTFPs) was going on in the Park
4. The forests in Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi areas can easily access in many ways
5. Lack of manpower for patrolling entire forests
6. Tourism development may pose threats to the Langur populations
Action needed
1. Strengthen law enforcement in the Park
2. Identify what people want from the forest and look for alternatives that could be
developed outside the forest.
3. Develop plantation programs to take the pressure for timber, non-timber forest
products and firewood off the natural forest.
4. Develop zoning plans for livestock grazing to identify where livestock can graze.
5. Limit human access to forests
6. Recruit and train local people to join patrol and monitoring programs of Francois’
Langur and its habitat
7. Conduct regular patrols in the Langur known habitats
8. Conduct raising awareness and conservation education programs.
9. Develop protocols for the behavior of tourism to minimize risks of disease
transmission and species disturbance in Langur known habitat, particularly in Đầu
Đẳng and Na Phoon area
10. Develop zoning plans as part of the management plans for the forests to detail where
tourism can develop trail systems.
7.4. Establish long-term monitoring for the Francois’ Langur population
Issues
1. Lack of information on the changes in the population status of Francois’ in the Park
2. Lack of manpower and trained people to conduct long-term monitoring program
3. Lack of funding available for conducting these activities
Action needed
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Determine current population status of Francois’ Langur populations in the Park
Identify critical habitats for Francois’ Langur populations in the Park
Identify current threats to the Langurs and its habitat
Recruit and train local people and park rangers ready to participate in these activities
Develop a raising fund program that can secure long-term monitoring activities
7.5. Increase public awareness for Francois’ Langur conservation
Issues
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hunting is a tradition of ethnic communities in the Park
Little public information on Francois’ Langur are available in the Park
Lack of local support in Francois’ Langur conservation
Lack of Francois’ Langur and wildlife education programs in school
Action needed
1. Develop wildlife education program to discourage hunting by local people in the Park
2. Develop awareness materials (posters, radio programs, documentary) about
Francois’ Langur in Ba Be and broadcast it on National and local television and radio.
3. Recruit and involve local people in conservation programs to make positive use of
their local knowledge and raise their proud of possession of rare species.
4. Develop a special education program for schools located in villages around the Park
7.6. Conduct long-term research on Francois’ Langur ecology and behavior
Issues
1. Little information on behavior and ecology of Francois’ Langur are available
2. The presence of researchers may reduce human activities in areas studied
3. Research will provide useful information towards a management and conservation
action plan of the species
Action needed
1. Encourage students and researchers to get involved in long-term research programs
in the Park, though the existing Ba Be Ecological Research Station (BBERS)
2. Develop funding sources available for relevant research through BBERS
3. Recruit and train park staff and local people to involve in these activities
8. Conclusions
The distribution of Francois’ Langur appeared to be restricted to two areas in Ba Be National
Park: Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi areas. Sighting of Francois’ Langur is rare. Only one group of
four animals was detected during this survey in Pắc Ngòi area. Group size seems to be
lower than that in China. These may show downward trend of populations of Francois’
Langur in areas surveyed.
Like other primate populations, hunting and habitat destruction are the main threats to
species and its habitat. Illegal logging poses a serious threat to the critical habitats of
Francois’ Langur, while shotguns and traps are identified the main methods for hunting.
Both activities were often found in remote and difficult areas where control of forest rangers
is irregular due to limited number of staff available. H’mong people from Nam Dai, Dan May
and local people from Nam Cuong Village are identified as target hunters and loggers.
Two forest rangers and one park staff were trained basic field techniques that are able to
apply to later monitoring programs. These techniques include map and compass reading,
using GPS, note-taking, data recording and observation skills.
Actions that are needed to address the threats observed during the Francois’ survey are
presented within this document. These recommendations will be used as guidelines for
developing an action plan for conservation of the Francois’ Langur at the Ba Be site. The
Conservation Action Plan will be developed using a log frame approach with goal, objectives
and activities that will aim to be as specific as possible, stating where and when actions will
take place and who will implement it.
References
Bleisch, W., & Zhang, Y. (2004). The view across the border: China and the future of Vietnam primates. In T.
Nadler, U. Streicher & H. T. Long (Eds.), Conservation of Primates in Vietnam (pp. 107-114). Hanoi:
Haki Publishing.
Committee, B. K. P. s. (2001). Operational Plan for Ba Be National Park, Bac Kan Province (2001-2005). Bac
Kan: Ba Be National Park.
Cowlishaw, G., & Dunbar, R. (2000). Primate Conservation Biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Dang, N. X., Nghia, N. X., & Lam, P. T. (2006). Results of status assessment of Francois' Langur and other
primates in Tam Dao National Park Tam Dao: Tam Dao National Park and Buffer Zone Management
Project (GTZ).
Định, B. V. (2003). Giới thiệu về vườn quốc gia Ba Bể. Paper presented at the Báo cáo hội thảo khoa học vườn
quốc gia Ba Bể khu bảo tồn thiên nhiên Nà Hang, Vườn quốc gia Ba Bể.
Groves, C. (2001). Primate Taxonomy. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Hu, G., Dong, X., Wei, Y., Zhu, Y., & Duan, X. (2004). Evidence for a decline of François’ Langur
Trachypithecus francoisi in Fusui Nature Reserve, south-west Guangxi, China. Oryx, 38(1), 48-54.
Huang, C., Wei, F., Li, M., Li, Y., & Sun, R. (2002). Sleeping Cave Selection, Activity Pattern and Time
Budget of White-headed Langurs. International Journal of Primatology, 24(4), 813-824.
Johns, A. D. (1986). Effects of Selective Logging on the Behavioral Ecology of West Malaysian Primates.
Ecology, 67(3), 684-694.
Kirkpatrick, R. C. (1995). The Natural History and Conservation of the Snub-nosed Monkeys (Genus
Rhinopithecus). Biological Conservation, 72, 363-369.
Li, Y., Huang, C., Ding, P., Tang, Z., & Wood, C. (2007). Dramatic decline of Francois’ Langur Trachypithecus
francoisi in Guangxi Province, China. Oryx, 41(1), 38-43.
Margoluis, R., & Salafsky, N. (2001). Is our project succeeding? A guide to threat reduction assessment for
conservation. . Washington, D.C: Biodiversity Support Program
Mittermeier, R. A. (1987). Effects of hunting on rain forest primates. In C. W. Marsh & R. A. Mittermeier
(Eds.), Primate conservation in the tropical rain forest (pp. 109-146). New York: Alan R. Liss.
Mittermeier, R. A., & Cheney, D. L. (1987). Conservation of primates and their habitats. In B. B. Smuts, D. L.
Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham & T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.), Primate societies. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Nadler, T., Momberg, F., Nguyen, D. X., & Lormee, N. (2003). Leaf Monkeys Vietnam Primate Conservation
Status Review 2002 - Part 2. Hanoi: Fauna and Flora International.
Pham, N. (2003). Đa dạng thú ở vườn quốc gia Ba Bể thực trạng và giải pháp bảo tồn. Paper presented at the
Báo cáo hội thảo khoa học quốc gia vườn quốc gia Ba Bể khu bảo tồn thiên nhiên Nà Hang, Vườn
quốc gia Ba Bể.
Plumptre, A. J., Cox, D., & Mugume, S. (2003). The status of Chimpanzees in Uganda. Uganda: Wildlife
Conservation Society.
Plumptre, A. J., & Reynolds, V. (1994). The impact of selective logging on the primate pupulations in the
Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31, 631-641.
Rabinowitz, A. (1999). Wildlife field research and conservation a training manual. New York: Wildlife
Conservation Society.
Ross, C., & Reeve, N. (2003). Survey and census methods: population distribution and density. In J. M. Setchell
& D. J. Curtis (Eds.), Field and Laboratory Methods in Primatology A Practical Guide (pp. 90-109).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trai, L. T., Eames, J. C., Tu, N. D., Furey, N. M., Kouznetsov, A. N., Monastyrskii, A. L., et al. (2004).
Biodiversity Report on the Ba Be / Na Hang Conservation Complex including Ba Be National Park, Na
Hang Nature Reserve, and South Xuan Lac Species and Habitat Conservation Area. Hanoi: Forest
Protection Department.
White, L., & Edwards, A. (2000). Methods for assessing the status of animal populations In L. W. A. Edwards
(Ed.), Conservation research in the African rain forests a technical handbook (pp. 218-268). New
York, USA: The Wildlife Conservation Society.
Zhou, Q., Huang, C., Li, Y., & Cai, X. (2007). Ranging behavior of the Francois’ Langur (Trachypithecus
francoisi) in the Fusui Nature Reserve, China. Primates, 48, 320-323.
Photos
Figure 3 Team member at base camp
Figure 4 Information recording practice
Figure 5 Compass, map and GPS use practice
Figure 6 Interview with local people
Figure 7 Faeces of serow (Naemorhedus
(Capricornis) sumatraensis
Figure 8 Faeces of Hog Badger (Arctonyx
collaris)
Figure 9 hunting equipment
Figure 10 Metal traps to capture medium/large
mammals
Figure 11 Shifting cultivation at Pắc Ngòi
Figure 12 Illegal logging at Pắc Ngòi
Figure 13 Making wine from palm
Figure 14 livestock grazing at Nam Dai
Figure 15 Cutting tree for grazing livestocks
at Đầu Đẳng
Figure 16 a big tree of Kim Giao at Đầu Đẳng
Appendix
Appendix I. List of mammals recorded during the survey
No.
1
2
3
Vietnamese name
Scientific name
English name
Evidences
Assamese Macaque
Sighting
Francois’ Langur
Sighting
Họ Khỉ
Cercopithecideae
Khi mốc
Macaca assamensis
Họ phụ voọc
Colobinae
Voọc đen má trắng
Trachypithecus francoisi
Họ triết
Mustelidae
Lửng lợn
Arctonyx collaris
Hog Badger
Faeces
Hoẵng
Muntiacus muntjack
Barking Deer
Faeces
Họ sừng rỗng
Bovidae
Serow
Faeces
Pallas’s Squirrel
Sighting
Họ sừng đặc
4
5
6
Sơn dương
Naemorhedus (Capricornis)
sumatraensis
Họ sóc cây
Sciuridae
Sóc bụng đỏ
Callosciurus erythraeus
Appendix II. List of birds recorded during the survey
No.
Vietnamese name
Scientific name
English name
Evidences
Little Egret
Chinese Pond Heron
Sighting
Sighting
Red Junglefowl
Silver Pheasant
Voice
Sighting
3
4
Họ Diệc
Cò trắng
Cò bợ
Họ Trĩ
Gà rừng
Gà lôi trắng
Ardeidae
Egretta garzetta
Ardeola bacchus
Phasianidae
Gallus gallus
Lophura nycthemera
5
Gà tiền
Polyplectron bicalcalatum
Grey Peacock Pheasant
Voice
6
Họ Ưng
Diều hâu
Họ Bói cá
Accipitridae
Milrus migrans
Alcedinidae
Black Kite
Sighting
7
Sả đầu nâu
Halcyon smyrnensis
White-throated
Kingfisher
Sighting
8
Họ Bồ câu
Cu gáy
Họ Gõ kiến
Columbiformes
Streptopelia chinensis
Picidae
Spotted Dove
Sighting
9
Gõ kiến xanh cổ đỏ
Picus rabieri
Red-collared
Woodpecker
Sighting
Họ Chích chòe
Turdinae
10
Chích chòe lửa
Copsychus malabaricus
White-rumped Shama
Sighting
11
Họ Khướu
Họa mi
Timaliidae
Garrulax canorus
Hwamei
Sighting
Phường chèo
Pericrocotus flammeus
Scarlet Minivet
Sighting
Họ Cu cu
Bìm bịp lớn
Họ Chào mào
Chào mào
Cuculidae
Centropus sinensis
Pycnonotidae
Pycnonotus jocosus
Criniger ochraceus
Alcedinidae
Halcyon smyrnensis
Greater Coucal
Voice
Red-whiskered Bulbul
Ochraceous Bulbul
Sighting
Sighting
White -throated
Kingfisher
Sighting
1
2
Họ Phường chèo
12
13
14
15
16
Họ Sả
Sả đầu nâu
Appendix III Needs for additional surveys
We still know little about the distribution of extant wild populations of Francois’ Langur
across the Ba Be National Park landscape, since only two areas (Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi)
were surveyed during this survey mission.
Further, because of short duration of survey time in each area surveyed, the results gained
may not reflect true population status of Francois’ Langur in Đầu Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi.
The survey team therefore suggests an additional survey on the population status in the Đầu
Đẳng and Pắc Ngòi areas, and of other sections of the national park is required.
Tentative schedule for additional surveys is presented below.
Date
Supposed survey areas
June, 2009 Pắc Ngòi
July, 2009
No. of survey days
10
Đầu Đẳng, Puong Grotto, Nam Dai, Khau Qua 14
Appendix IV. Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference
Status Survey of Francois’ Langur at Ba Be National Park
Background
Ba Be National Park is located in Vietnam’s northern mountains and is a home of endangered
primate species Francois’ Langurs (Trachypithecus francoisi). Until date, there has been no
reliable information on the population status of the species. This requires an immediate
survey of population status of Francois’ Langurs (Trachypithecus francoisi) in order to
provide adequate data to develop an action plan and to design a long term monitoring
program for the species.
Involvement of local staff and people in the project plays an important role in the success of
the conservation project. By recruited them participating in the project we expect that to
better develop the capacity of trained human resourced for participation in future research
and conservation initiatives and a better understanding and appreciation of biodiversity
conservation amongst the stakeholder communities, meeting long term conservation program
in Ba Be National Park.
Objectives
•
•
•
•
Assess population status of Francois’ Langurs Ba Be National Park
Identify current threats to the species and its habitats
Train three national park staff in basic field techniques
Give appropriate recommendations for species management and conservation, resulting in
developing a species action plan
Methods
Use of maps, compass, and basic field survey equipment
The proper use of map and compass is vital to field work and data collection. They tell you
where you are and how to get where you want to go; they help you to delineate study areas or
sample plots, and allow you to pinpoint locations of animals.
Map and compass training include
• What are maps?
• Importance of maps
• Kinds of maps (just introduce topographic and satellite maps)
• Contour lines
• Landform and drainage features
• Reporting locations on a map (latitude/longitude, grid reference)
• Determining directions, distance and areas
• Establishment of best routes of travel on maps
• What is compass?
• Basic use
Walking compass bearings (use for census transects)
Other related equipment training include binoculars, altimeter, camera
•
Assignments and field exercise
Equipment needed
Compass, map (1:50000), tape, measures (30-50m), GPS, rulers, paper and pencil
1. Measure distances between mark points on the given map
2. Determine the site of the area that is circled by the trainer on the topographic map
3. Consider the best route of travel between point A and B that is given out by trainer
4. Describe the characteristics of the land shown on the topographic map
5. Determine accurate compass bearings on objects flagged by the trainer
6. Determine locations on the topographic map based on GPS reading
Making observations and taking notes
Using available information
This aims at familiarizing observers with at least a large number of the vertebrate species in
the area surveyed. This includes using field guides, checklists, reports, local reports.
Careful field observations
Participants will be provided skills how to observe animals when sighted and how to walk in
the forest.
Taking notes
Good field notes hinge on good observation. Participants will be provided some basic skills
for taking food field notes such as always record field notes at time of observation, how to
keep data recorded safely.
Designing data sheet
Participants will be instructed a data sheet based on the information that is given out by
trainer.
At the top of a wildlife data sheet
Observers
Team number
Date
Weather
Time start/Time finish
Forest type
Location
The categories on the sheet
Species name
Time of sighting
Detailed description (size, shape, color)
Number of individuals
Specific location of sighting
Habitat
Measurement of sign
Behavior
Height above ground
Remarks
Field exercises (will be determined and assigned for participants in the field)
Interview
Interview surveys with local people ranging from villagers, hunters to rangers, national park
staff will be carried out before the surveys to determine the most likely places for
encountering the species. These interviews will also provide information on the current and
past distribution of the species in the study area. Survey questions will be designed in
advance based on the purpose of the survey. Interviewer will approach to interviewee by
talking to the local people and asking questions since this has several benefits: 1) Decrease the
numbers of “no answer” and “do not know”; 2) Allow probing by interviewer; 3) Allows
clarification of questions; 4) Allows interviewer to observer and judge the quality of an
answer and the person being interviewed. These verbal reports, however, will be used with
care and only be added to the dataset after further verification in the field. Pictures will also
be used during interview surveys to avoid confusion about local names of certain species.
Survey questions designed criteria
• Questions should be written down so that they are worded exactly the same for all
respondents
• If question are not clear to people, the interviewer can clarify the question but must be
careful not to change the content of the question
• These verbal reports will be used with care and only be added to the dataset after further
verification in the field
• Survey question should be neutral
• Interviewer must record responses exactly
Questionnaires
1) How many primates have you seen in this area?
2) Where did you see them?
3) When did you see them?
4) Who accompany with you when you saw them?
5) How many animals did you see?
6) How large seen animals were?
7) What did animals do when you saw them?
8) How close did you see the animals
9) Could you describe the pelage color of seen animals?
10) How long tail is (shorter or longer than animal’s body)?
11) Could you list all known primates in this area?
12) Do you know Francois’ Langur?
13) If yes, how do you know about them?
14) When did you last see them and where?
Species presence surveys
Existing trails, transects, and reported sleeping sites will be used to determine the presence of
Francois’s Langur at Ba Be National Park. The presence of the species may be clear from
both direct and indirect evidence, such as:
• Direct observation of live animals
• Indirect observation of characteristic signs (tracks, faeces, nests, feeding signs,
vocalizations, etc.)
• Observation of animal captured or killed ( care should be taken to ascertain where the
animals were obtained)
• Reports from locals
Group size and composition
Given the small populations of Francois’s Langur at Ba Be National Park, opportunistic
census will be used to count total the numbers of animals in each group whenever
encountered. More efforts will be paid to the sleeping sites of the species since this may
allow observers to have good visibility to count a whole group and determine age/sex
composition of the group.
Sleeping site surveys
Local reports, indirect and direct evidence, full-day follow will be used to determine current
sleeping sites of Francois’s Langur at Ba Be National Park. GPS and topographic maps will
be used to get locations and mark sleeping sites of the species on the map.
Threats
Information on the presence of traps/snares, guns/crossbows, camps, hunting dogs, forest
clearance, timber-cutting, huts, non-timber forest product collection, and livestock grazing
will be recorded during daily surveys to assess the human impact on Fracois’ Langur and its
habitat as well as on wildlife as a whole.
Time frame
Dates
10th Feb 2009
11st Feb 2009
12nd Feb 2009
13rd -26th Feb
2009
27th Feb 2009
Activities
Preparation for trip: developing training materials; survey methods
(interview; field surveys)
Leaving for Ba Be National Park
Meeting with Ba Be National Park staff; planning, preparation, and
training at Ba Be: map, GPS and compass reading; trail and transect
survey; note-taking; animal identification…
Field survey including meeting with local people to get general idea
about the locations of probability of encounter Francois’ Langur
Returning to Hanoi
1st -3rd Mar 2009
4th Mar 2009
- National Park staff submit final report to consultant
- Consultant writing-up report
Sending report to reviewers for comments
10th Mar 2009
Responding to comments
Field equipment needed
No.
1
Items
Binoculars
Quantity
2
2
GPS
2
3
Compass
2
4
Topographic maps
2
5
6
Tent
Hammock
1
2
7
Camera
1
8
Notebooks
8
9
Data recording sheet
10
11
Pen/pencil
Field identification
guides
Digital watch
Sleeping bags
Uniforms, Shoes
Altimeter
12
13
14
15
6
2
2
3
2
2
Remarks
Binoculars with magnification and the width
at least 8x40
For recording the start and end of transects,
or position of point counts and forest clear
For marking maps, determining survey
routes
Topographic maps of the survey areas on as
large a scale as available
Tent for 4 people
Some areas on limestone tent may not
suitable than hammock
Photographs of survey area, different types
of habitats, evidence of human activities,
captured specimens
Notebooks with plastic bag for rain
protection or All-Weather Notebook
These will be designed by PI and photocopied in advance
These will be used to identify other
mammals during surveys
For recording timing
To measure altitude

Survey of population status of Francois` Langur in Ba Be National Park

Transcription

Similar documents

January, 2014

Playing - Phillips Exeter Academy

Glen Haffy Conservation Area Trail Map

Unreserved Real Estate Auction

Winter_2015 - Mineral Point School District

In Kind - Venture for Fund Raising

The Willis Family Feb. 11-14

New Study Shows ʺCollapseʺ of Worldʹs Largest