A biodiversity assessment between protected and managed forests in southeastern Cameroon

(1)

1 University of Liège, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, TERRA Research Centre, Central African Forests 2 University of Liège, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, BIOSE & TERRA, Biodiversity and Landscape

Funded by 3 Plant Systematic and Ecology

Laboratory, University of Yaoundé I 4 AMAP Lab, IRD, CIRAD, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier University

A BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT BETWEEN

PROTECTED AND MANAGED FORESTS

IN SOUTHEASTERN CAMEROON

Davy Fonteyn 1_{, Simon Lhoest}1_{, Marc Dufrêne}2_{, Nicolas Barbier}3,4_{, Fructueux}

Houngbégnon 1_{, Moses Libalah}3_{, Bonaventure Sonké}3_{, Nicolas Texier}3,4_,

Donatien Zebaze 3_{, Adeline Fayolle}1

(2)

The Congo Basin, a threatened biodiversity

1

© Oddizzi © Hilde Vanleeuwe © Des & Jen Bartlett © Rhett A. Butler

© Karl Ammann

© Charles Dugas © Okapi Conservation Project

(3)

More humans … more pressure

2

(4)

More humans … more pressure

3

© Martin Harvey © Martin Harvey

(5)

Forest allocation in the Congo Basin

55 millions ha

( < 10 % sustainably certified)

4 27 millions

>

Protected forests

Logging concessions

(6)

Objectives

& terrestrial wildlife biodiversity

Richness & Composition

Assessing tree biodiversity

Structure Richness

5

How degraded are forests along a disturbance gradient ?

1°

What is the wildlife conservation value of forests along a disturbance gradient ?

(7)

Study Area

6 DJA

Never logged

>20 years

10-20 years

<10 years

CF

Disturbance gradient

(8)

Methods

Tree Biodiversity

http://www.rainfor.org/

In practice …

© Gauthier LIGOT © Simon LHOEST © Gauthier LIGOT © Simon LHOEST

7 36 Forest plots

2 274 height data

Counting

Identification &

herbarium samples

Height measurements

329 species 17 370 trees

(9)

Methods

http://www.teamnetwork.org/

In practice …

• 30 - 50 cm height

• Oriented towards a « wildlife friendly site » • Clearing vegetation within a 3-4 m radius • 3 months to reach 1000 trap.days/grid

8 44 camera traps

Terrestrial wildlife Biodiversity

(10)

© Davy FONTEYN

Results & Discussion

(11)

Results & Discussion

Above Ground Biomass (T/ha)

9

500 400 300 200 100 1°

Comparable AGB between protected & logged forests Community forests are structurally higly disturbed How degraded are forests along a disturbance gradient ?

(12)

Results & Discussion

<10 years

Number of plots (ha)

10

Number of species

Number of plots (ha)

Number of shade bearer sp.

1° _{How degraded are forests along a disturbance gradient ?}

CF Number of

pioneer sp.

(13)

Results & Discussion

• Similar forest structure indices and richness (Djuikouo et al., 2010; Fayolle et al., 2016;

Lewis et al., 2013)

• Biomass recovery adressed by space-for-time approaches

• One time series data in M’Baïki in Central African Republic (Gourlet-Fleury et al., 2013 )

11

1° _{How degraded are forests along a disturbance gradient ?}

Gourlet-Fleury et al., 2013 DJA Never logged FC >20 years 10-20 years

Quick recovery

Large initial AGB

(14)

6

_{© Simon LHOEST & Davy FONTEYN}

Results & Discussion

What is the wildlife conservation value of forests along a disturbance gradient?

(15)

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 Nombre de jours N o m b re d 'e s p è c e s

Results & Discussion

18 sp. 26 sp. Nu mb e r of sp e cies Number of days

Yellow-backed duiker Red river hog

Forest giant squirrel

Blue duiker Brush-tailed porcupine

12

2°

(16)

Results & Discussion

13

2°

Mean trap

rate/day

(17)

Results & Discussion

• Large-bodied species or species with slow population dynamics are the most vulnerable in disturbed areas (van Vliet et al., 2007, 2008)

• Resilient species might be more abundant in disturbed places (density compensation (Peres et Dolman, 2000)

• A shift in species composition appeared with overhunting leading to a dominance of small animals and rodents (Bennett et al., 2002; Vermeulen, pers. com.; Gillet, 2016)

14

2°

Peliperdix lathami Funisciurus isabella

Cricetomys emini Guttera plumifera Agelastes niger Protoxerus stangeri Himantornis haematopus Funisciurus pyrropus Atilax paludinosus Neotragus batesi Phataginus spp. Genetta servalina Nandinia binotata Crossarchus platycephalus Cephalophus castaneus Cephalophus nigrifrons Cercocebus agilis Philantomba congica Bdeogale nigripes Atherurus africanus

Tragelaphus spekii Cephalophus silvicultor Potamochoerus porcus Pan troglodytes Smutsia gigantea Cephalophus callipygus

1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 management m management 1 2.2 2.3 3 Pe l i p e rd i x l a th a m i Fu n i s ci u ru s i s a b e l l a

C ri ce to m ys e m i n i Gu tte ra p l u m i fe ra Ag e l a s te s n i g e r Pro to xe ru s s ta n g e ri H i m a n to rn i s h a e m a to p u s Fu n i s ci u ru s p yrro p u s

Ati l a x p a l u d i n o s u s N e o tra g u s b a te s i Ph a ta g i n u s s p p . Ge n e tta s e rva l i n a N a n d i n i a b i n o ta ta C ro s s a rch u s p l a tyce p h a l u s

C e p h a l o p h u s ca s ta n e u s C e p h a l o p h u s n i g ri fro n s C e rco ce b u s a g i l i s Ph i l a n to m b a co n g i ca Bd e o g a l e n i g ri p e s Ath e ru ru s a fri ca n u s

Tra g e l a p h u s s p e ki i C e p h a l o p h u s s i l vi cu l to r Po ta m o ch o e ru s p o rcu s Pa n tro g l o d yte s Sm u ts i a g i g a n te a C e p h a l o p h u s ca l l i p yg u s

1 2 .2 2 .3 3 1 2 .2 2 .3 3 1 2 .2 2 .3 3 1 2 .2 2 .3 3 1 2 .2 2 .3 3 1 2 .2 2 .3 3 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6

m anagem ent

m

m anagem ent

1 2 .2 2 .3 3 Mean trap

(18)

Take-home message

15 DJA

CF

FSC

Comparable levels of AGB

Quick recovery

or

structural heterogeneity

or

low logging intensity

Structurally disturbed &

rich in pioneer species

“ How degraded are forests along

a disturbance gradient ? ”

“What is the wildlife conservation

value of forests along a disturbance

gradient? ”

Not a paper park

Endangered or sensitive

species present

BUT Hunting & Accessibility

Defaunated & density

(19)

Thank you for your attention !

Research partners

Feel free to ask questions or

contact me…

(20)

Sampling strategy

DBR

Never logged

>20 years

10-20 years

<10 years

CF

Disturbance gradient

Vegetation plots Camera traps

(21)

Results & Discussion

13 Body

mass

2°

Peliperdix lathami Funisciurus isabella

Cricetomys emini Guttera plumifera Agelastes niger Protoxerus stangeri Himantornis haematopus Funisciurus pyrropus Atilax paludinosus Neotragus batesi Phataginus spp. Genetta servalina Nandinia binotata Crossarchus platycephalus Cephalophus castaneus Cephalophus nigrifrons Cercocebus agilis Philantomba congica Bdeogale nigripes Atherurus africanus

Tragelaphus spekii Cephalophus silvicultor Potamochoerus porcus Pan troglodytes Smutsia gigantea Cephalophus callipygus

1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 1 2.2 2.3 3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 management m management 1 2.2 2.3 3 Mean trap rate/day