SPECIES DENSITY OF THE
SOUTHERN LESSER BUSHBABY (GALAGO MOHOLI)
AT LOSKOP DAM NATURE RESERVE, MPUMALANGA, SOUTH AFRICA,
WITH NOTES ON HABITAT PREFERENCE
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS
BY
IAN S. RAY
DR. EVELYN BOWERS, CHAIRPERSON
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
MAY 2014
SPECIES DENSITY OF THE SOUTHERN LESSER BUSHBABY (GALAGO MOHOLI)
AT LOSKOP DAM NATURE RESERVE, MPUMALANGA, SOUTH AFRICA,
WITH NOTES ON HABITAT PREFERENCE
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS
BY
IAN S. RAY
Committee Approval:
____________________________________
Committee Chairperson
________________________
Date
____________________________________
Committee Member
________________________
Date
____________________________________
Committee Member
________________________
Date
Departmental Approval:
____________________________________
Department Chairperson
________________________
Date
____________________________________
Dean of Graduate School
________________________
Date
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
MAY 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
3. LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
4. LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
5. LIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii
6. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
a. BACKGROUND AND THEORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
b. LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
i. HABITAT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ii. MORPHOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
iii. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
iv. REPRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
v. SOCIALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
vi. DIET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
vii. LOCOMOTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
c. OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. MATERIALS AND METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
a. STUDY SITE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
b. DATA COLLECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
c. DATA ANLYSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
8. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
a. SPECIES DENSITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
i
b. ASSOCIATED PLANT SPECIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
a. SPECIES DENSITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
b. HABITAT PREFERENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. REFERENCES CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
ii
ABSTRACT
THESIS:
Species Density of the Southern Lesser Bush Baby (Galago moholi) at Loskop
Dam Nature Reserve, Mpumalanga, South Africa with notes on habitat
preference.
STUDENT:
Ian S. Ray
DEGREE:
Master of Arts
COLLEGE: Sciences and Humanities
DATE:
May 2014
PAGES:
68
A population survey was conducted on Galago moholi along the road system at Loskop
Dam Nature Reserve, Mpumalanga province, South Africa. The data were analyzed using the
maximum perpendicular distance, mean perpendicular distance, and maximum reliable
perpendicular distance methods. Vegetation sample plots were constructed at the location of each
individual sighted in order to analyze the species’ habitat use. The results indicate that the
species density of G. moholi is significantly lower at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve than
previously reported at other sites within South Africa. G. moholi was found to prefer areas with
high concentrations of Dichrostachys sp., Combretum sp., or Acacia sp. One individual was
observed consuming vegetative matter, which may indicate that the population within the reserve
is utilizing available resources in a different way than populations in other parts of southern
Africa.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I will be eternally grateful to all who helped to make this project possible... My adviser
and committee chairperson, Dr. Evelyn Bowers, deserves much gratitude for supplying me with
a seemingly endless amount of advice and resources, both in the classroom and in the field. I
thank my other committee members, Dr. S. Homes Hogue and Dr. Ronald Hicks, for their
continued support throughout my academic career. Furthermore, I would like to extend my
thanks to the full staff of Ball State University’s Department of Anthropology for their genuine
compassion and dedication to the discipline.
I would like to thank Dr. Brandi Wren for her help both in field training and throughout
my field research, as well as Ruby Malzoni and Michele Mingini for their assistance in
conducting the population survey. I am grateful to the aid provided by Jannie Coetzee and the
staff of the Applied Behavioural Ecology and Ecosystem Research Unit (ABEERU) of the
University of South Africa (UNISA), and for being allowed to work at Loskop Dam Nature
Reserve.
iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1:
ESTIMATED SPECIES DENSITY OF G. MOHOLI ALONG VARIOUS
TRANSECT SEGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
TABLE 2:
ESTIMATED SPECIES DENSITY OF G. MOHOLI AT LOSKOP DAM
NATURE RESERVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
TALBE 3:
PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED AND NUMBER OF EACH SPECIES. . . . . . 22
TABLE 4:
MAJOR PLANT GENUS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL WOODY SPECIES. . 23
TABLE 5:
PERCENTAGE OF TREES BY SIZE CLASS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
TABLE 6:
PERCENTAGE OF CENTER TREE DBH BY SIZE CLASS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
TABLE 7:
PERCENT CANOPY COVER BY CLASS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1:
MAP DISPLAYING THE PROVINCES OF SOUTH AFRICA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FIGURE 2:
MAP DISPLAYING THE RANGE OF O. CRASSICAUDATUS AND G.
MOHOLI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
FIGURE 3:
LOCATION OF THE LOSKOP DAM NATURE RESERVE IN THE
MPUMALANGA PROVINCE OF SOUTH AFRICA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
FIGURE 4:
TRANSECTS LABELED BY COLOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
FIGURE 5:
LOCATION OF EACH INDIVIDUAL AT INITIAL SIGHTING. . . . . . . . . . . 19
FIGURE 6:
G. MOHOLI CONSUMING THE FRUIT OF D. CINEREA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1:
TRANSECT DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
APPENDIX 2:
VEGETATION SAMPLE PLOT DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
vii
INTRODUCTION
Background and Theory
Speciation by means of natural selection was first proposed by Darwin (2009). The
concept of natural selection has been modified, resulting in the Synthetic Theory of evolution
(Huxley 1939). This synthetic theory combines natural selection, genetics, and random processes
(Huxley 1939). It is necessary to understand a population’s environment in order to understand
the selective pressures to which the population is exposed. Thus, ecological studies are an
important step towards understanding the evolution of a species, both past and present.
The study of ecology would be impossible without the concept of a niche (Colwell and
Rangel 2009; Wake et al. 2009). A niche is commonly described as a multidimensional
hypervolume of space having the required resources and environmental conditions allowing a
species to live (Colwell and Rangel 2009). In the face of climate change, niches change and
populations may shift to new territory, adapt, or go into decline (Colwell and Rangel 2009; Wake
et al. 2009). These niche changes produce differing pressures upon which natural selection acts,
providing the mechanism for evolution (Darwin 2009; Wake et al. 2009)
Two generally recognized species of prosimians are found within South Africa, Galago
moholi A. Smith 1836 and Otolemur crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy 1812 (Ravosa et al. 2010).
These species are partially sympatric and may display similar ecological adaptations, thus their
exact evolutionary relationship is not entirely clear. The goal of this research is to determine
what ecological niche G. moholi occupies and whether this niche could overlap with that of a
population of O. crassicaudatus should one be introduced to Loskop Dam Nature Reserve,
through either natural processes or artificial releases.
1
Literature Review
The family Galagidae, or the bush babies, is composed of small nocturnal primates that
inhabit the forests, woodlands, and savannahs of the African continent (Stephenson et al. 2010).
Galagidae, along with the sister family Lorisidae, form the order Lorisiformes (Seiffert et al.
2003). In turn, Lorisiformes is a sister group to the Lemuriformes of Madagascar (Seiffert et al.
2003). The clade of the Galagidae, the African Lorisiformes, is of interest not only because
ancestral populations are a likely source of the Madagascar Lemuriformes, but also because of
the role of the animals within their own ecosystem (Stankiewicz et al. 2006).
Many species of galago have been described and considerable debate exists over which
populations belong to each species (Stephenson et al. 2010). Many species depend heavily on
tree exudates, with saps and gums
forming up to 75 percent of the diet of
some species (Stephenson et al. 2010).
The establishment of species currently
is based predominantly on behavioral
and genetic distinctions rather than on
physical similarities between
populations (Lawes 2005). This is
Figure 1: Map displaying the provinces of South
Africa (Skinner and Chimimba 2005:XVII)
contrary to the morphological
observations that have previously been
used to distinguish galago species.
Within South Africa, two generally accepted species are found. Galago moholi (the South
African galago) is found in Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Gauteng, and northeast KwaZulu-Natal
2
provinces (Lawes 2005). The South
African galago was grouped with Galago
senegalensis É. Geoffroy 1796 as Galago
senegalensis moholi (Anderson 1998;
Nash et al. 1989). Otolemur
crassicaudatus (the thick-tailed galago) is
found in Limpopo, eastern Mpumalanga,
and only at lower elevations in KwaZuluNatal provinces (Lawes 2005). Bearder
(1974) suggested that the discontinuous
distribution of both species indicates that
the forests of South Africa have not been
continuous since bushbabies first evolved.
The two species occur sympatrically in
some areas but at lower overall densities
than in areas where they are separate
(Bearder and Doyle 1974). These are the
only members of the Lorisidae that are
known to be sympatric outside of the
tropics (Crompton 1980). This may be due
to niche overlap or to sympatric
environments being suboptimal habitat for
both species (Bearder and Doyle 1974).
Figure 2: Maps displaying the distribution of O.
crassicaudatus (top) and G. moholi (bottom) (Lawes
2005:212, 214)
3
Habitat
O. crassicaudatus has been said to prefer riverine savannah and woodlands (Nash et al.
1989). O. crassicaudatus is found from sea level to over 1,800 m (Lawes 2005). In Limpopo and
Mpumalanga provinces, they often are found in dry woodlands that are adjacent to riverine areas
(Lawes 2005).They have been found to rest in plantations of nonnative Eucalyptus spp. and
Pinus spp. (Bearder and Doyle 1972; Lawes 2005).
G. moholi is also found in riverine bush but can be found in more dry areas as well (Nash
et al. 1989). It is most often found in association with Acacia sp. woodlands and the highest
densities are found in Acacia karoo thickets (Bearder and Doyle 1972). G. moholi is independent
of water sources, allowing it to inhabit areas away from rivers and streams (Lawes 2005). They
occur only on the fringes of true forests, seeming to prefer slightly more open habitat (Lawes
2005). Outside of South Africa, they are replaced by Galagoides grantii at elevations under
200m (Lawes 2005).
The population density of both South African galago species varies depending on the
habitat. For O. crassicaudatus, Bearder and Doyle (1972) report a density of 88 individuals per
square kilometer in riparian bush and scrub, 110 per km2 in mixed woodland and plantation
forests, and 125per km2 in dune forest. This is of interest because the plantation forests are
typically considered sterile areas where wildlife does not thrive (Bearder and Doyle 1972). The
density of G. moholi is greatest in A. karoo woodlands, with up to 500 animals per square
kilometer being reported (Bearder and Doyle 1972). In riparian bush and scrub G. moholi are
found at a density of 95 individuals per km2, while the density decreases to 87 per km2 in areas
of mixed woodlands and plantations (Bearder and Doyle 1972).
4
Morphology
O. crassicaudatus is the most massive of the galagos, being 1131g on average (Nash et
al. 1989). O. crassicaudatus occurs sympatrically with many other galago species over its
extensive range, including Otolemur garnettii, G. senegalensis, and G. moholi (Nash et al. 1989).
The average length of the head and body is 313mm, plus an average tail length of 410mm (Nash
et al. 1989). The pelage of O. crassicaudatus varies in color from brown to grey (Nash et al.
1989). O. crassicaudatus has larger ears, a more robust snout, and a larger overall body size than
the similar O. garnettii (Masters and Bragg 2000). The hind foot of O. crassicaudatus, however,
is smaller in proportion to overall body size when compared with O. garnettii (Masters and
Bragg 2000).
G. moholi is significantly smaller than O. crassicaudatus, averaging only 158g (Nash et
al. 1989). It is largely sympatric with O. crassicaudatus, O. garnettii, and has been shown to
occasionally be sympatric with G. senegalensis (Nash et al. 1989). G. moholi averages only
438mm in total length, with a 288mm tail and a 150mm head and body (Nash et al. 1989). The
pelage of G. moholi varies dorsally from brownish-gray to light brown. The flanks and the limbs
have a distinctive yellow tinge and dark facial markings are present (Nash et al. 1989).
The differences in penile morphology are of taxonomic interest due to the promiscuous
mating system of galagos (Dixon 1989). Varying genital morphology may lead to differing
reproductive rates, thus providing a basis on which natural selection can act. The penile length of
O. crassicaudatus averages 20 mm with a maximum width of 6.5 mm (Anderson 1998). The
baculum can be seen protruding from the end of the penis (Anderson 1998). This differs from O.
garnettii which has a unique set of curves not seen in other galago species (Anderson 1998).
Like G. senegalensis, G. moholi on average has a 10 mm penis (Anderson 1998). However, G.
5
moholi has a uniformly thick shaft of 3mm with a visible baculum and thick spines pointing
towards the body (Anderson 1998). G. senegalensis has thin penile spines and no visible
baculum (Anderson 1998).
G. moholi was split as a species from the similar G. senegalensis on the basis of sympatry
in Tanzania (Masters and Bragg 2000). G. moholi has a smaller, narrower snout than G.
senegalensis with longer ears and different skull morphology (Masters and Bragg 2000).
Although these are cryptic species, Masters and Bragg (2000) found they could distinguish
preserved specimens with an accuracy of 89 percent using snout width and the length of the tail,
ear, hind foot, and palate.
The hair of G. moholi is 0.08mm in diameter with scales every 0.02mm on average
(Anderson 1998). The hand and foot pads of G. moholi differ from those of G. senegalensis
(Stephenson et al. 2010). This further helps to confirm the separation of G. moholi from G.
senegalensis.
The dentition of both species follows the standard primate dental formula of 2/2 1/1 3/3
3/3 (Lawes 2005). Like most galagos, the lower incisors and canines are modified to form a
tooth-scraper (Stephenson et al. 2010). This is thought to aid in the collection of exudates from
trees (Stephenson et al. 2010). In line with this, the ascending ramus of O. crassicaudatus
develops at a faster rate than the rest of the mandible, allowing for the mouth to be opened
extremely widely to utilize this tooth scraper (Ravosa et al. 2010). Ravosa et al. (2010) found
that the ascending ramus of G. moholi develops at the same rate as seen in non-exudivore
galagids, implying that the ability to open the mouth extremely wide to feed on gum is not
necessary for gumivorous prosimians. Interestingly, the jaw has not been found to be more
6
robust in species like O. crassicaudatus and G. moholi than in other non-exudivorious galagids
(Ravosa et al. 2010).
Molecular Biology
Molecular studies have been used to establish phylogenetic relationships and to estimate
the timing of speciation events (Masters et al. 2007; Seiffert et al. 2003). As technology has
progressed there has been a transition from using karyotyping methods to using more precise
DNA sequence data. The taxonomy of the galagos is well supported at the family and genus
levels by mitochondrial DNA sequences (Masters et al. 2007). Both Lorisidae and Galagidae are
supported as monophyletic families by the molecular analysis and previous morphological
analyses (Masters et al. 2007). Within the Galagidae, the sequencing supports the monophyly of
the genera Galago and Otolemur (Masters et al. 2007). This supports the previous removal of O.
crassicaudatus from the genus Galago (Anderson 1998).
Ying and Butler (1971) reported that five chromosome polymorphisms were found in
what they considered a single species of G. senegalensis. They constructed karyotypes for each
of 11 individuals studied from groups they termed G. s. zanzibaricus, G.s. moholi, and G.s.
braccatus (Ying and Butler 1971). It was found that all individuals of G.s. moholi had a diploid
chromosome number of 38, while G.s. zanzibaricus had a diploid number of 36 (Ying and Butler
1971). The third group, G.s. braccatus, was found to have diploid numbers of 36, 37, and 38 in
different individuals (Ying and Butler 1971). Individuals were assigned to these subspecies
groupings using pelage color, size, weight, and geographic origin (Ying and Butler 1971).
Individuals assigned to G.s. braccatus come from an area recognized today as a zone of
sympatry between G. moholi and G. senegalensis, thus possibly accounting for the discrepancies
in diploid chromosome number within the G.s. braccatus group (Nash et al. 1989; Ying and
7
Butler 1971). The hybrid with 37 chromosomes may be a result of nondisjunction of
chromosomes rather than of direct hybridization between n=36 and n=38 chromosome parents
(Ying and Butler 1971). While such hybrids are possible in the wild, the two species are unlikely
to interbreed due to the differing reproductive timing of G. moholi and G. senegalensis (Nash et
al. 1989). This is supported by the observation that all offspring from n=37 individuals had only
36 chromosomes (Ying and Butler 1971)
Reproduction
Mating in O. crassicaudatus occurs during two weeks at the beginning of the cold, dry
winter in June (Clark 1985). Gestation lasts until late October or early November with weaning
occurring three months after birth (Clark 1985). According to a paper by Welker and SchaferWitt (1988), twins or triplets are born and newborns cling to and climb on the mother shortly
after birth. A study at the Duke University Primate Center found that, with captive O.
crassicaudatus, twins or triplets were found in approximately 50 percent of all pregnancies
(Izard and Simons 1986). There was not a statistically significant difference in infant survival
between wild-born females and captive-born females, or between females who previously had
successful pregnancies and first-time mothers (Izard and Simons 1986). A statistically significant
male-biased sex ratio was found within all three species of bushbaby studied including O.
crassicaudatus and G. moholi, with respective p-values of p=0.0336 and p=0.0091 (Izard and
Simons 1986).
G. moholi has two breeding season per year and a gestation period of 122 to 125 days.
This results in their giving birth in late September or October and in early February (Doyle et al.
1967; Pullen et al. 2000). This corresponds to the beginning and end of the summer wet season
(Pullen et al. 2000). In a study at Duke University, twinning occurred in 60 percent of all
8
pregnancies with no triplets occurring (Izard and Simons 1986). Izard and Simons (1986) found
a male-bias sex ratio in G. moholi. This may be due to the dispersal pattern of the genus Galago,
with males traveling farther and females remaining matrilocal. The pattern allows male offspring
to spread their genes farther and more rapidly than female offspring, creating a selective pressure
favoring male offspring (Izard and Simons 1986).
The nests of O. crassicaudatus are only constructed by females with young, although
sleeping in open sites does occur both with and without young (Bearder et al. 2003; Clark 1985).
By May, offspring gain up to 75 percent of their adult weight but do not grow further until the
next spring (Clark 1985). Dispersal occurs the year after adult size is reached (Clark 1985).
Female O. crassicaudatus often retain home ranges near to or overlapping with their mother’s
(Clark 1985). Cannibalism has been observed in captivity, where it was likely the stress of
experimental conditions that led mothers to cannibalize their infants (Tartabini 1991).
G. moholi males have been found to be significantly heavier during breeding seasons than
during other times of the year (Pullen et al. 2000). Generally, larger males are more successful in
copulation and out-compete smaller males, giving evolutionary significance to this finding
(Pullen et al. 2000). Within captive breeding groups of G. moholi, frequent short-duration
copulations of 10-15 seconds were observed with a few longer duration mounts up to 450
seconds (Doyle et al. 1967). In the wild, only long duration mounts have been observed lasting
540 seconds on average with the maximum copulation time being 53 minutes in length (Pullen et
al. 2000). It is possible that this extended copulation time gives selective influence to the penile
morphology, supporting the observations made by Anderson (1998) of differences in penile
morphology between G. senegalensis and G. moholi.
9
The nests of G. moholi are built from leaves and form a sleeping platform (Bearder
1969). Old birds’ nests are sometimes used as sleeping sites, with weaver birds’ nests in
particular being utilized (Bearder 1969). Nests may be used for months, with favored nests sites
being changed at different times of the year (Bearder 1969). Data from captive individuals
indicates that nests are built by females and shared with their group, which may include a male
and the female’s offspring (Bearder 1969).
Sociality
Scent marking and vocalizations are often observed in both species of South African
Galago (Bearder and Doyle 1972; Bearder et al. 2003; Clark 1985; Welker and Schafer-Witt
1988). O. crassicaudatus males have been shown to group together after a loud call, moving
from as far away as 0.3 km (Clark 1985). Juvenile O. crassicaudatus are known to emit a
buzzing noise when contact with the foraging group is lost (Bearder et al. 2003). Many
individuals of both species have been known to scent mark at specific sites, likely because
information such as fertility can be exchanged through scent (Bearder and Doyle 1972; Clark
1985).
Although often described as solitary, social interactions do consume a significant portion
of O. crassicaudatus nightly activity (Bearder et al. 2003). Social interactions range from
grooming and play to agonistic actions taken to cause a conspecific to leave the immediate area
(Clark 1985). Groups have been observed foraging together at night, with each group containing
a female, her offspring, and occasionally a single male (Bearder et al. 2003).
On a nightly basis, the social interactions of O. crassicaudatus occur most frequently at
areas of home range overlap where gum trees are present (Clark 1985). Females, on average,
have smaller home ranges than males (Clark 1985). Males disperse farther and continue to move
10
later in life than females, resulting in females being the stable unit of socialization (Clark 1985;
Welker and Schafer-Witt 1988).
The territory of one male G. moholi averages 11 hectares and overlaps with the smaller
territory of several females, each averaging 6.7 hectares (Harcourt and Bearder 1989). Dispersal
is similar to O. crassicaudatus, with males traveling farther away than females, who remain
close to their birth territory (Harcourt and Bearder 1989).
Many different calls are used by G. moholi, possibly conveying different meanings
ranging from food to territorial calls (Bearder and Doyle 1972). It has been observed that, in
captive specimens, a call will be uttered by the dominant animal during play (Bearder and Doyle
1972). In captive G. moholi, all age-class and sex combinations were tolerant of juveniles, with
grooming being the most common social interaction followed by displacement and play (Bearder
and Doyle 1972; Nash and Flinn 1978). While group formation occurs in captivity, it is noted
that G. moholi is on average more solitary than O. crassicaudatus in the wild (Bearder and Doyle
1972). Also, it is noted that aggression seen in captivity may be a result of confinement rather
than of a dominance conflict, as in the wild two individuals having conflict could easily separate
(Nash and Flinn 1978). Groups of wild G. moholi have been observed in numbers from two to
six, with very few observations of animals in groups of four or more (Bearder 1969).
Diet
The diet of both species of South African bushbaby is similar, consisting of many
invertebrates and tree sap (Harcourt 1986). The average height for feeding on Acacia sap was 20
feet for G. moholi and varied for O. crassicaudatus from a low of around five feet during the
summer to a high of around 25 feet during the winter (Harcourt 1986). G. moholi has never been
reported consuming fruit in its natural habitat, while O. crassicaudatus has been observed
11
feeding on the berries of Zizyphus mucronata and fecal samples have contained Euclea sp. seeds
and Combretum sp. flowers (Harcourt 1980; Harcourt 1986; Harcourt and Bearder 1989).
O. crassicaudatus has been said to consume vertebrates, including domestic chickens, but
this activity is not known from many well studied populations (Bearder 1974; Harcourt 1980).
The consumption of invertebrates by both species is similar during the summer months, and O.
crassicaudatus has been known to prey on large millipedes of up to 150mm long (Harcourt
1986). O. crassicaudatus consumes larger insects than G. moholi during summer months,
although both species feed on similarly sized prey during the winter months. (Harcourt 1980). O.
crassicaudatus was observed to reduce its’ consumption of insects during the winter months and
instead spent time feeding on gum, likely because fewer insects were available at the study site
during the winter (Harcourt 1986).
O. crassicaudatus relies more heavily on gum than G. moholi, although both species
consume more gum during winter months than during other times of the year (Harcourt 1986).
G. moholi was found to feed on gum for around 50 seconds per night during the summer to 3360
seconds during the winter while O. crassicaudatus was found to increase from 40 sec during the
summer to 2280 seconds during the winter (Harcourt 1986). However the time spent feeding on
gum does not mean the overall intake was greater, as gum becomes more crystalline during the
winter. G. moholi may have a more difficult time than O. crassicaudatus taking in this harder
winter gum (Harcourt 1986).
Locomotion
G. moholi is known to utilize leaping as the primary means of locomotion, accounting for
over 50 percent of locomotion in one study (Crompton 1980). Climbing accounted for a further
20 percent of locomotor activity, with walking, running, and descending accounting for less than
12
15 percent each (Crompton 1980). Leaping was found to account for approximately 700m for
every km traveled, with all other types of locomotion accounting for no more than 150m each
(Crompton 1980). The majority of movement occurred from 1933h to 2033h nightly with a sharp
decline thereafter (Crompton 1980). Locomotion during the day is rare but has been reported in
the winter months (Bearder 1969). This is in line with behavior observed at Loskop Dam Nature
Reserve, where several individuals were observed up to one hour before sunset and no animals
were observed after 2100h throughout the study period.
Conversely, O. crassicaudatus uses walking and climbing as the primary means of
locomotion (Crompton 1980). It was found that climbing and walking each account for a third of
O. crassicaudatus’ movement, while running makes up 10 percent of all movements (Crompton
1980). Walking accounts for 300m for every km traveled while climbing and running each
account for approximately 250m (Crompton 1980). Leaping also accounts for 200m per km
traveled (Crompton 1980). The movements of O. crassicaudatus have been said to resemble
those of Perodicticus potto, likely because both species utilize similar resources (Crompton
1980).
Objectives
The purpose of this research was to find the answers to two major questions. First, what
behavioral niche does G. moholi occupy? Second, could Loskop Dam Nature Reserve be
expected to support a population of O. crassicaudatus?
Limitations to this study included difficulty finding or observing the nocturnal primates,
potentially small amounts of data being collected over the duration of the study, and limited
utility of statistical analyses on the collected data. Also, published accounts of O. crassicaudatus
did not provide enough information to determine the suitability of Loskop Dam Nature Reserve
13
as a potential habitat. Contrary to what was expected, G. moholi was not observed in habitat
centering exclusively on gum producing trees located in areas more distant from park boundaries
and campsites.
14
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Site
Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is a Provincial Nature Reserve located 52 km north of
Middleburg in Mpumalanga, South Africa (Barrett et al. 2010; Ferrar and Lotter 2007). Ferrar
and Lotter (2007) state that Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is currently 22,900 hectares in size.
Barrett et al. (2010) give the location between longitude 29°15’00” and 29°40’00” east and
latitude 25°34’00” and 25°56’00” south. Minimum temperature for July averages 8.5°C, with
yearly temperatures ranging from -8°C to 40°C (Barrett et al. 2010).
Figure 3: Location of the Loskop Dam Nature Reserve in the Mpumalanga Province of
South Africa (Barrett et al. 2010:3)
15
Data Collection
Transects were driven throughout the tourist road system of Loskop Dam Nature Reserve
between the hours of 1800 and 2200 on 12 days between June 29 and July 12, 2011. The system
was broken down into segments based on major landmarks, including junctions in the road. The
transects included the following road segments: Landberg road, Blesbok loop, T-junction 1 to TJunction 2, T-Junction 2 to picnic site, Camp to T-Junction 1, and the Water Pump road (see
Figure 4). Additional transects had been planned but were not performed because access to a
four-wheel-drive vehicle could not be secured.
Speed varied between four and 13 km per hour with a target speed of 10 km per hour.
The following were recorded for each sighting: the degrees off of transect, distance to the
individual, a brief description of the tree the individual was in, estimated height in vegetation,
and GPS coordinates of the vehicle.
Vegetation sample plots were constructed during the following days at the location of
each individual (see Figure 5). The center of the plot was the tree in which the individual was
sighted. A tape measurer was used to determine 5m from the center tree in all directions. Any
vegetation with over one half of its mass within the 5m radius was considered to be inside the
plot. Species and diameter at breast height (DBH) were recorded for all woody species over
2.5cm in diameter. Woody species were identified using Schmidt et al. (2002) and Van Wyk and
Van Wyk (2011). Canopy cover was determined by using a densitometer at 1m intervals from
the center point in each cardinal direction.
Data Analyses
Transect data was analyzed using six methods presented by the National Research
Council in Techniques for the Study of Primate Population Ecology (1981). Mean perpendicular
16
distance, maximum perpendicular distance, and maximum reliable perpendicular distance were
used to extrapolate a population estimate for the entire reserve. Mean observer-to-animal
distance, maximum observer-to-animal distance, and maximum reliable observer-to-animal
distances were also used to estimate the population of the reserve (NRC 1981). Each transect
segment was analyzed using the same techniques. However the sample was too small to
accurately determine maximum reliable perpendicular or maximum reliable observer-to-animal
distances (NRC 1981)
Vegetation Analyses
Data from the vegetation sample plots were analyzed in order to determine the following:
total plants observed, percentage of the total each species accounted for, and the percentage of
the total that potential fruiting species accounted for. Percent canopy cover was calculated for
each sample plot and placed into four classes, 0 to 25 percent, 30 to 50 percent, 55 to 75 percent,
and 80 to 100 percent.
DBH data was counted to determine the average DBH of each sample plot and of all
plots. The DBH of each identified woody species was also placed into one of five size classes;
2.5 cm to five cm, five cm to 10 cm, 10 cm to 20 cm, 20 cm to 35 cm and greater than 35 cm.
This was then analyzed to determine the most prevalent size class for each center tree and across
all plots.
17
Figure 4: Transects Labeled By Color
Blue: Water Pump Road
Green: T-junction 1 to Camp
Yellow: Landberg Road
Red: T-junction 1 to T-junction 2
Purple: Blesbok Loop
Black: T-junction 2 to Picnic Site
18
Figure 5: Location of Each Individual at Sighting
19
RESULTS
Species Density
The transect segments varied in estimated density from a minimum of 0.58 animals per
kilometer to a maximum of 8.5 animals per kilometer (Table 1). The most frequent estimate
across all analytical methods was approximately three individuals per km (Table 1).
Table 1: Estimated Species Density of G. moholi Along Various Transect Segments
(animals/km2)
Transect
Segment
Camp to Tjunction 1
T-junction 1
to T-junction
2
Picnic Road
Landberg
Road
Blesbok Loop
Maximum
Mean
Maximum
Mean ObserverPerpendicular
Perpendicular
Observer-toto-Animal
Distance Method Distance Method Animal Distance Distance Method
Method
3.735
8.5
3.384
6.895
3.3258
8.4
2.016
5.593
1.27
2.48
1.27
8.147
0.5846
1.521
0.5846
3.722
2.13
2.169
1.11
1.965
The estimated population of G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve ranges from a
minimum of 196 individuals to a maximum of 1029 individuals depending on the analytical
method used (Table 2). The mean perpendicular distance method and mean observer to animal
distance method yielded estimates of 1028.9 and 609.0 animals throughout the reserve. The
maximum perpendicular distance and maximum observer to animal distance methods provided
an estimate of 323.9 and 196.5 animals, respectively. The maximum reliable perpendicular
distance method provided an estimate of 772.8 animals with a cut off of 15m, but only 515
animals with a cut off of 30m. The maximum reliable observer to animal distance provided an
estimate of 365.1 animals with a cut off of 30m and 296.2 animals with a cut off of 50m.
20
Table 2: Estimated Species Density of G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve
Analytical Method
Maximum Perpendicular Distance
Maximum Reliable Perpendicular
Distance (15m)
Maximum Reliable Perpendicular
Distance (30m)
Maximum Observer to Animal
Distance
Maximum Reliable Observer to
Animal Distance (30m)
Maximum Reliable Observer to
Animal Distance (50m)
Mean Perpendicular Distance
Mean Observer to Animal Distance
Estimated Density
Estimated Population of
(animals/km2)
Reserve (animals)
1.58
323.9
3.77
772.85
2.51
515
0.959
196.595
1.781
365.105
1.445
296.225
5.019
2.971
1028.99
609.055
Associated Plant Species
Fifty plant species were identified within a 5m radius of each sighting (Table 3). Of
these, the most frequently identified belonged to the genus Acacia, Combretum, and
Dichrostachys (Table 4). DBH of each woody plant over 2.5cm was measured with multiple
stems of the same species being added together to yield one overall DBH. Overall,
approximately 29 percent of woody species were between 2.5 and 5.0 cm in DBH, 32 percent
were between 5.1 and 10.0 cm DBH, 20 percent were between 20.1 and 35.0 cm DBH, and only
six percent were over 35cm DBH (Table 5). However, the DBH trees in which individuals were
initially spotted occurred at different frequencies. Approximately 3.1 percent of sightings
occurred in the 2.5 to 5.0 cm range, with 9.3 percent occurring in the 5.1 to 10.0 range (Table 6).
The 20.1 to 35.0 cm range had the most occurrences, with 46.8 percent, followed by 10.1 to 20.0
with 25 percent of sightings and 15.6 percent in trees with an overall DBH of greater than 35.0
cm.
21
Percent canopy cover ranged from 10 percent to 90 percent. The greatest number (46.8
percent) of sightings occurred in areas with between 30 percent and 50 percent canopy cover
(Table 7). Sightings in areas of 55 to 75 percent were also common (21.8 percent), as were 80
percent to 100 percent (28.1 percent). The lowest number of sightings occurred in areas of 0 to
25 percent canopy cover (6.2 percent)
Table 3: Plant Species Identified and
Number of Each Species
Plant Species
Acacia burkei
Acacia caffra
Acacia karoo
Acacia nigrescens
Acacia nilotica
Acacia sp.
Acacia tortillis
Berchemia zaire
Bridellia mollis
Burkea Africana
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum kraussii
Combretum molle
Combretum zeyheri
Corelia ovalis
Croton megalobotrys
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dyplorhyncus
condylocarpon
Ealodendron
transvaalense
Ehretia amoena
Ehretia crispa
Ehretia rigida
Ehretia obtusfolia
Euclea crispa
Euclea undulate
Individuals
Identified
23
1
25
12
10
6
7
1
3
8
52
1
25
18
1
2
193
48
3
28
1
4
4
1
54
1
Flueggea virosa
Grewia monticola
Grewia flavescens
Gymnosporia
senegalensis
Gymnosporia tenuispina
Lippa javanica
Lycium cinercum
Maytenus undata
Ozoroa paniculosa
Peltophorum africanum
Protea caffra
Rhus leptodictia
Rhus pyroides
Rhus zaire
Salvodora persica
Sandpaper bushwillow
Sclerocarpa birrea
Strychnos
madagascariensis
Strychnos spinosa
Terminalia prunoides
Teinnea rhodesiana
Vangueira parvifolia
Warburgia salutaris
Ziziphus mucronata
unknown
Total Plants
3
22
12
1
2
42
1
2
5
1
11
10
13
1
2
1
13
3
2
11
3
1
4
5
32
735
22
Table 4: Major Plant Genus and Percent
of Total
Major Plant Genus
Acacia sp.
Combretum sp.
Dichrostachys sp.
Percentage of Total
11.4754
13.1148
26.3661
Table 5: Percentage of Trees By Size Class
Size Class (cm)
Percent of All Trees (n=249)
28.9
31.7
20.5
12.9
6.0
2.5 to 5.0
5.1 to 10.0
10.1 to 20.0
20.1 to 35.0
Greater than 35.0
Table 6: Percentage of Center Tree DBH by Size Class
Size Class (cm)
Percent of Center Trees
(n=32)
3.1
9.4
25
46.9
15.6
2.5 to 5.0
5.1 to 10.0
10.1 to 20.0
20.1 to 35.0
Greater than 35.0
Table 7: Percent Canopy Cover by Class
Percent Canopy
Cover
0 to 25
30 to 50
55 to 75
80 to 100
Percentage of
Sample Plots
(n=32)
6.3
46.9
21.9
28.1
23
DISCUSSION
Species Density
The National Research Council of the United States of America (1981) determined the
most reliable methods for the maximum reliable observer-to-animal distance method and the
maximum reliable perpendicular distance method. These methods were employed to estimate the
population density of G. moholi throughout the reserve (Table 1). The maximum reliable
perpendicular distance method with a cutoff of 15m yielded an estimate of 3.77 animals per
square kilometer, or 772 animals throughout the reserve. If a 30 m cutoff is used, that estimate
drops to 2.51 animals per square kilometer or 515 animals throughout the reserve.
The maximum reliable observer-to-animal distance method may be the most reliable
estimate (NRC 1981). If a cutoff of 30 m is used, the estimated population density is 1.78
animals per square kilometer or 365 animals throughout the reserve. If a cutoff of 50 m is used,
the estimate drops to 1.44 animals per square kilometer or 296 animals throughout the reserve.
The various methods used yielded a range of estimates of 0.58 individuals per square
kilometer to 8.5 individuals per square kilometer (Table 2). According to Techniques for the
Study of Primate Population Ecology, both the mean perpendicular distance method and the
mean observer to animal distance method yield estimates of density off by as much as 85 percent
(NRC 1981). Due to the low number of sightings, it was not possible to determine a maximum
reliable sighting distance for each individual transect. The next most reliable methods are the
maximum perpendicular distance and the maximum observer-to-animal distance methods (NRC
1981). These yielded estimates of between 3.7 and 0.58 individuals per square kilometer for
various transects
24
Regardless of the method used, the estimated density of G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature
Reserve is lower than the estimate of 95 animals per square kilometer reported by Bearder and
Doyle (1972). Because of the cold temperatures associated with higher latitudes and the lower
activity of G. moholi during winter months, the population of the reserve may be underestimated.
It is not likely that the season alone accounts for the substantial difference in population
estimates. Rather, the population at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is likely under significantly
increased ecological stress compared populations at lower latitudes.
Habitat Preference
The habitat preference of G. moholi could not be statistically demonstrated due to a lack
of published information on the areas of the reserve where G. moholi was observed. However,
the majority of sightings occurred in areas where Dichrostachys cinerea, Acacia sp., or
Combretum sp. were present (Table 4). Filmalter (2010) surveyed the vegetation in the
Honderkraal section of Loskop Dam Nature Reserve and Barrett et al. (2010) surveyed the
vegetation in the home ranges of Chlorocebus pygerythrus F. Cuvier 1821. Neither of these areas
overlapped with the observed locations of G. moholi.
The majority of sightings occurred in areas of 30 to 50 percent canopy cover, but this
may represent observer bias rather than the preference of G. moholi for more open areas. G.
moholi may prefer to locomote between trees of at least 10.0 cm in DBH, as only nine percent of
sightings occurred on trees of below 10.0 cm DBH. This is not likely due to observer bias, as
sighting an individual on a smaller tree was no more difficult than spotting in a larger tree
(Figure 2).
On July fifth at approximately 16:40h, an individual G. moholi was observed consuming
the fruit of a Dichrostachys cinerea (Figure 3). The individual consumed the entire seed pod
25
before moving out of observable range. Because of the marginal habitat available at Loskop Dam
Nature Reserve, this may represent a unique dietary adaptation used by the population around the
University of South Africa Research Camp.
26
Figure 4: G. moholi
consuming the fruit of D.
cinerea
27
CONCLUSION
The density of G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is extremely low compared to
the density observed in other areas (Bearder 1972; Bearder and Doyle 1974; Harcourt and
Bearder 1989). This may indicate the need for a species management plan to ensure G. moholi
does not become locally extinct. Additional population surveys are needed to determine the
population density in areas of the reserve not surveyed by the present study.
The consumption of vegetative matter by G. moholi is a previously unobserved
phenomenon and may have significant implications as a fallback food source. The population of
G. moholi at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve may be exploiting a different niche than other
populations of the same species due to the elevation and the location of the reserve at the edge of
the species’ range. O. crassicaudatus may be capable of surviving at Loskop Dam Nature
Reserve, but may be out competed by G. moholi due to increased niche overlap. Additionally,
the high percentage of Combretum sp. found in the vegetation sample plots may indicate that
Dichrostachys cinerea is not the only vegetative matter being consumed by G. moholi. Many
Combretum sp. were observed to be fruiting during the study period. Further study is needed to
demonstrate the extent to which G. moholi is utilizing vegetative matter as a food source.
Although outside the current range of O. crassicaudatus, Loskop Dam Nature Reserve
was hypothesized to be capable of supporting a population of O. crassicaudatus as well as G.
moholi. An analysis of the potential impact of the introduction of O. crassicaudatus would have
been needed if Loskop Dam Nature Reserve was found to be capable of supporting a population.
However, the low population of G. moholi combined with the observation of the ingestion of
fruit likely indicates that Loskop Dam Nature Reserve is suboptimal habitat for G. moholi, and
would not be expected to support a population of the larger O. crassicaudatus.
28
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, Matthew J.
1998 Comparative Morphology and Speciation in Galagos. Folia Primatologica
69(1):325-331.
Barrett, Alan S., Leslie R. Brown, Lousie Barrett, and Peter Henzi
2010 A Floristic Description and utilization of Two Home Ranges by Vervet Monkeys
in Loskop Dam Nature Reserve, South Africa. Koedoe 52(1):1-12.
Bearder, S. K.
1969 Territorial and Intergroup Behaviour of the Lesser Bushbaby, Galago
senegalensis moholi in Semi-Natural Conditions and in the Field. MsC thesis,
University of the Witwaterstrand.
Bearder, Simon Kenneth
1974 Aspects of the Ecology and Behaviour of the Thick-Tailed Bushbaby Galago
crassicaudatus. PhD thesis, University of the Witwaterstrand.
Bearder, Simon K., Lesley Ambrose, Caroline Harcourt, Paul Honess, Andrew Perkin, Elizabeth
Pimley, Samantha Pullen, and Nadien Svoboda
2003 Species-Typical Patterns of Infant Contact, Sleeping Site Use and Social
Cohesion among Nocturnal Primates in Africa. Folia Primatologica 74:337-354.
Bearder, Simon K. and G. A. Doyle
1972 Field and Laboratory Studies of Social Organization in Bushbabies (Galago
senegalensis). Journal of Human Evolution 3:37-50.
Bearder, S.K., and G.A. Doyle
1974 Ecology of Bushbabies Galago senegalensis and Galago crassicaudatus. In
Prosimian Biology. Martin, Robert D., Gerald A. Doyle, and Alan C. Walker, eds.
Pp. 109-130. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
Clark, Anne B.
1985 Sociality in a Nocturnal “Solitary” Prosimian: Galago crassicaudatus.
International Journal of Primatology 6(6):581-600.
Colwell, Robert K., and Thiago F. Rangel
2009 Huchinson’s duality: The once and future niche. Proceedings of the national
Academy of Sciences 106(2):19651-19658.
Crompton, Robin H.
1980 A Leap in the Dark: Locomotor Behaviour and Ecology in Galago senegalensis
and Galago crassicaudatus. PhD thesis. Harvard University.
29
Darwin, Charles.
2009 The Origin of Species. 150th Anniversary ed. Alachua, FL: Bridge Logos.
Originally published as On the origin of species by means of natural selection or
the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life (London: John Murray,
1859).
Dixon, A.F.
1989
Sexual Selection, Genital Morphology and Copulatory Behavior in Male Galagos.
International Journal of Primatology 10(1):47-55.
Doyle, G.A., A. Pelletier, and T. Bekker
1967 Courtship, Mating and Partuition in the Lesser Bushbaby (Galago senegalensis
moholi) Under Semi-Natural Conditions. Folia Primatologica 7:169-197.
Ferrar, Tony A., and Mervyn C. Lotter
2007 Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Mpumalanga Parks and
Tourism Agency, Nelspruit.
Filmalter, Nicolene
2010 A Vegetation Classification and Management Plan for the Honderkraal Section of
the Loskop Dam Nature Reserve. MTech dissertation. University of South Africa.
Harcourt, Caroline Susan
1980 Behavioural adaptations in South African Galagos. MsC dissertation. University
of the Witwaterstrand.
Harcourt, Caroline
1986. Seasonal Variation in the Diet of South African Galagos. International Journal of
Primatology 7(5):491-506.
Harcourt, Caroline S., and Simon K. Bearder
1989 Comparison of Galago moholi in South Africa with Galago zanzibaricus in
Kenya. International Journal of Primatology 10(1):35-45.
Huxley, J.S.
1939
Ecology and Taxonomic Differentiation. Journal of Ecology 27(5):408-420.
Izard, M. Kay, and Elwyn L. Simons
1986 Infant Survival and Liter Size in Primigravid and Multigravid Galagos. Journal of
Medical Primatology 15:27-35.
Lawes, M. J.
2005 XVI. Family Galagidae. In The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion.
John D. Skinner and Christian T. Chimimba eds. Pp 210-217. Cape Town:
Cambridge University Press.
30
Masters, Judith C., Michele Boniotto, Sergeio Crovella, Christian Roos, Lucia Pozzi, and
Massimiliano Delpero
2007 Phylogenetic Relationships Among the Lorisoidea As Indicated by Craniodental
Morphology and Mitochondrial Sequence Data. American Journal of Primatology
69:6-15.
Masters, Judith C., and Nigel P. Bragg
2000 Morphological Correlates of Speciation in Bush Babies. International Journal of
Primatology 21(5):793-813.
Nash, Leanne T., Simon K. Bearder, and Todd R. Olson
1989 Synopsis of Galago Species Characteristics. International Journal of Primatology
10(1):57-80.
Nash, Leanne T., and Lynn Flinn
1978 Group Formation in Captive Lesser Galagos (Galago senegalensis). Primates
19(3):493-503.
National Research Council Subcommittee on Conservation of Natural Populations
1981 Techniques for the Study of Primate Population Ecology. Washington, D.C:
National Academy Press.
Pullen, S.L., S.K. Bearder, and A.F. Dixson
2000 Preliminary Observations on Sexual Behavior and the mating System in Freeranging Lesser Galagos (Galago moholi). American Journal of Primatology
51:78-88
Ravosa, Matthew J., Ashley N. Daniel, and Destiny B. Costly
2010 Allometry and Evolution in the Galago Skull. Folia Primatologica 81:177-196.
Schmidt, Ernst, Mervyn Lotter, and Warren McCleland
2002 Trees and Shrubs of Mpumalanga and Kruger National Park. Johannesburg:
Jacana Media.
Seiffert, Erik R., Elwyn L. Simons, and Yousry Attia
2003 Fossil evidence for an ancient divergence of lorises and galagos. Nature 44:421424.
Skinner, John D, and Christain T. Chimimba
2005 Explainatory Notes. In The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. John D.
Skinner and Christian T. Chimimba eds. Pp XII. Cape Town: Cambridge
University Press.
Stankiewicz, J., C. Thiart, J.C. Masters, and M.J. de Wit
2006 Did lemurs have sweepstake tickets? An exploration of Simpson’s model for the
colonization of Madagascar by mammals. Journal of Biogeography 33:221-235.
31
Stephenson, Isobel R., Simon K. Bearder, Guiseppe Donati, and Johann Karlsson
2010 A Guide to Galago diversity: Getting a Grip on How Best to Chew Gum. In: The
Evolution of Exudativory in Primates. Anne M. Burrows and Leanne T. Nash,
eds. Pp 235-255. New York: Springer Science.
Tartabini, Angelo
1991 Mother-infant Cannibalism in Thick-tailed Bushbabies (Galago crassicaudatus
umbrosus). Primates 32(3): 379-383.
Van Wyk, Braam, and Piet Van Wyk
2011 Field Guide to Trees of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Struik Publishers
Wake, David B., Elizabeth A. Hadly, and David D. Ackerly
2009 Biogeography, changing climates, and niche evolution. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 106(2):19631-19636.
Welker, C., and C. Schaver-Witt
1988 Preliminary Observations on Behavioral Differences Among Thick-Tailed
Bushbabies. International Journal of Primatology 9(6):507-518.
Ying, K.L., and H. Butler
1971 Chromosomal Polymorphism in the Lesser Bush Babies (Galago senegalensis).
Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 13:793-800.
32
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
1
19:46
S
E
Water Pump
Road
None
2
20:21
Route
S
E
Blesbok Loop
Sighting
None
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
25°24.5431'
29°20.9685'
Appendix 1: Transect Data
Date
6/30/2011
End Time
19:56
End Location S
25°24.0880'
E
29°21.0390'
Distance
873m
25°25.1297'
29°17.6832'
Route
Sighting
None
6/30/2011
20:58
S
E
25°25.2865'
29°17.9593'
5.27km
Distance
3
21:02
S
E
T2 to camp
Date
End Time
End Location
25°25.1263'
29°17.6813'
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
6/30/2011
22:02
S
E
25°24.4571'
29°21.0448'
3.5km
33
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
4
Date
18:55 End Time
S
25°25.1293'
End Location
E
29°17.6791'
Blesbok Loop
Distance
Time
GPS
Coordinates
1
19:10 S 25°25.2902'
2
19:16 S 25°25.8526'
5
19:55
S
E
T2 to T1
25°25.1257'
29°17.6782'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
3
25°24.4377'
29°19.0889'
Time
Sighting
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
20:18 S 25°24.6606'
6
20:45
S
E
Langberg
4
5
Date
End Time
End Location
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
21:11 S 25°23.7967'
21:36 S 25°24.2260'
7/1/2011
19:45
S
E
2.59km
25°25.2902'
29°17.9873'
Distance
E 29°18.0666'
E 29°18.1345'
43m
25m
Degrees off
transect
272°
245°
Height (est)
10m
2m
7/1/2011
S
E
3.51km
25°24.4377'
29°19.0892'
Distance
E 29°19.0892'
18m
Degrees off
transect
338°
Height (est)
1m
7/1/2011
22:11
S
E
7.28km
25°24.6541'
29°20.7159'
Distance
E 29°19.6454'
E 29°20.7792'
15m
43m
Degrees off
transect
35°
284°
Height (est)
2m
2.5m
34
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
7
17:58
S
E
Langberg
25°24.6568'
29°20.7196'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
6
7
25°24.4367'
29°19.0917'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
18:02 S 25°24.4770'
18:15 S 25°24.4770'
8
19:05
S
E
T1 to T2
8
Route
Sighting
None
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
19:40 S 25°24.7977'
9
19:40
S
E
Blesbok Loop
Date
End Time
End Location
25°25.1249'
29°17.6793'
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
7/3/2011
18:56
S
E
7.28km
25°24.4367'
29°19.0917'
Distance
E 29°20.8126'
E 29°20.8126'
60m
36m
Degrees off
transect
0°
7°
Height (est)
8m
3m
7/3/2011
19:30
S
E
3.44km
25°25.1289'
29°17.6805'
Distance
E 29°18.8458'
15m
7/3/2011
20:10
S
E
5.19km
25°25.2978'
29°17.9941
Degrees off
transect
123°
Height (est)
15m
35
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
10
20:10
Route
S
E
T1 to Camp
Sighting
None
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
25°24.4518'
29°19.0691'
Distance
11
17:51
S
E
Blesbok Loop
25°25.1291'
29°17.6826'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
9
Route
Sighting
None
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
18:20 S 25°25.1446'
12
18:36
S
E
Picnic In
Date
End Time
End Location
25°25.1306'
29°17.6755'
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
7/3/2011
20:54
S
E
4.49km
25°24.4270'
29°21.0113'
7/4/2011
18:28
S
E
5.29km
25°25.2924'
29°17.9850'
Distance
E 29°18.4181'
5m
7/4/2011
19:22
S
E
7km
25°26.9066'
29°15.7612'
Degrees off
transect
323°
Height (est)
0.5m
36
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
13
19:59
S
E
T2 to T1
25°25.1262'
29°17.6779'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
10
25°24.4368'
29°19.1003'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
20:16 S 25°24.552'
14
20:29
S
E
T1 to Camp
11
Route
Sighting
None
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
20:48 S 25°24.6681'
15
21:06
S
E
Waterpump
Date
End Time
End Location
25°24.5093'
29°20.9728'
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
7/4/2011
20:25
S
E
3.49km
25°24.4386'
29°19.1005'
Distance
E 29°19.1752'
95m
Degrees off
transect
355°
Height (est)
8m
7/4/2011
21:00
S
E
4.54km
25°24.4573'
29°21.0447'
Distance
E 29°20.6992'
25m
7/4/2011
21:12
S
E
866m
25°24.0870'
29°21.0402'
Degrees off
transect
75°
Height (est)
2m
37
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
16
18:00
S
E
Camp to T1
25°24.4598'
29°21.0468'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
12
13
25°24.4385'
29°19.0900'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
18:07 S 25°24.8473'
18:20 S 25°25.0282'
17
18:47
S
E
T1 to T2
14
15
16
Route
Sighting
None
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
18:48 S 25°24.4531'
19:00 S 25°24.6125'
19:30 S 25°24.9950'
18
19:43
S
E
Blesbok Loop
Date
End Time
End Location
25°25.1270'
29°17.6824'
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
7/6/2011
18:43
S
E
4.56km
25°24.4369'
29°19.0898'
Distance
E 29°20.4168'
E 29°20.3030'
33m
13m
Degrees off
transect
343°
90°
Height (est)
1.5m
2m
7/6/2011
19:47
S
E
3.47km
25°25.1304'
29°17.6825'
Distance
E 29°19.0862'
E 29°19.0329'
E 29°17.9791'
15m
19m
68m
7/6/2011
20:15
S
E
5.16km
25°25.2938'
29°17.9918'
Degrees off
transect
321°
338°
122°
Height (est)
1m
3m
1.5m
38
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
19
20:23
Route
S
E
Picnic Out
Sighting
None
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
Sighting
None
Route
Distance
20
21:55
S
E
Langberg in
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
25°25.1273'
29°17.6814'
25°24.4356
29°19.0917
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
21
18:10
S
E
Langberg out
25°24.6514'
29°20.7152'
Time
Sighting
Date
End Time
End Location
17
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
18:16 S 25°24.3271'
7/6/2011
21:17
S
E
7.09km
25°26.9012'
29°15.7578'
7/6/2011
22:35
S
E
7.15km
25°24.6542'
29°20.7198'
7/7/2011
19:11
S
E
7.19km
25°24.4355'
29°19.0915'
Distance
E 29°20.7715'
19m
Degrees off
transect
285°
Height (est)
1.5m
39
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
22
19:14
S
E
T1 to T2
25°24.4368'
29°19.0924'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
18
19
Route
Sighting
None
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
19:31 S 25°24.8282'
19:42 S 25°24.9700'
23
20:01
S
E
Picnic Out
25°25.1263'
29°17.6771'
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
24
18:10
S
E
Camp to T1
25°24.5218'
29°21.0158'
Time
Sighting
Date
End Time
End Location
20
21
22
23
18:15
18:28
18:34
18:42
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
S 25°24.6516'
S 25°24.7895'
S 25°24.8258'
S 25°25.0305'
7/7/2011
19:59
S
E
3.47km
25°25.1278'
29°17.6758'
Distance
E 29°18.8129'
E 29°18.3440'
24m
39m
Degrees off
transect
60°
310°
Height (est)
2.5m
0.5m
7/7/2011
21:02
S
E
7.17km
25°26.9057'
29°15.7613'
7/8/2011
19:08
S
E
25°24.4367'
29°19.0918'
5.21
Distance
E 29°20.7517'
E 29°20.4585'
E 29°20.4275'
E 29°20.2947'
11m
44m
14m
55m
Degrees off
transect
80°
55°
45°
65°
Height (est)
0.5m
7m
0.5m
3m
40
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
25
19:17
S
E
Langberg In
25°24.4383'
29°19.0921'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
24
25
26
25°26.9014'
29°15.7463'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
27
S
E
Waterpump
25°24.5056'
29°20.9710'
28
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
18:45 S 25°26.0207'
27
19:45
Time
Sighting
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
19:55 S 25°24.0658'
19:55 S 25°24.0658'
20:10 S 25°24.3191'
26
18:25
S
E
Picnic in
Date
End Time
End Location
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
19:52 S 25°24.3478'
7/8/2011
20:20
S
E
7.22km
25°24.6542'
29°20.7187
Distance
E 29°20.7500'
E 29°20.7500'
E 29°20.7726'
5m
18m
20m
Degrees off
transect
270°
50°
313°
Height (est)
4m
0m
4.5m
7/9/2011
19:21
S
E
7.41km
25°25.1269'
29°17.6760'
Distance
E 29°15.4519'
53m
Degrees off
transect
10°
Height (est)
1.5m
7/9/2011
20:03
S
E
873m
25°24.0874'
29°21.0374'
Distance
E 29°21.0374'
39m
Degrees off
transect
310°
Height (est)
3m
41
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Route
28
18:19
S
E
Langberg Out
25°24.6534'
29°20.7198'
Time
Sighting
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
29
Route
Sighting
None
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
Distance
GPS
Coordinates
18:32 S 25°23.9261
29
19:26
S
E
Picnic In
25°25.1248'
29°17.6760'
Route
Sighting
None
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
30
18:27
S
E
Picnic In
Date
End Time
End Location
25°26.9031'
29°15.7570'
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
7/10/2011
19:12
S
E
7.37km
25°24.4360'
29°19.0912'
Distance
E 29°19.0912'
68m
7/10/2011
20:13
S
E
7.09km
25°26.9033'
29°15.7613'
7/11/2011
19:11
S
E
7.00km
25°25.1280'
29°17.6759'
Degrees off
transect
350°
Height (est)
0m
42
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
31
19:20
Route
S
E
Blesbok Loop
Sighting
None
Transect
Start Time
Start Location
25°25.1288'
29°17.6778'
Distance
32
18:03
Route
S
E
Picnic In
Sighting
None
Date
End Time
End Location
25°26.8969'
29°15.7492'
Date
End Time
End Location
Distance
7/11/2011
19:52
S
E
5.2km
25°25.2955'
29°17.9920'
7/12/2011
18:43
S
E
6.97km
25°25.1266'
29°17.6786'
43
Appendix 2: Vegetation Sample Plot Data
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Strychnos spinosa
1
S 25°25.8233'
E 29°18.0700'
45% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
125.1
Other Species
Rhus leptodyctia
Rhus leptodyctia
Dichrostachys cinerea
Grewia monticola
Maytenus undata
Maytenus undata
Burkea africana
DBH (cm)
7.1
10
5.8
4.2
8.8
6.8
6
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Burkea africana
2
S 25°25.8388'
E 29°18.1277'
35% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
18.2
Other Species
Burkea africana
Burkea africana
Burkea africana
Burkea africana
Burkea africana
Burkea africana
DBH (cm)
28.1
9.2
12.3
30.7
22.8
10.2
Sighting
GPS Center Point
3
S 25°24.6514'
E 29°19.0021
65% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
35
Percent Canopy Cover
Percent Canopy Cover
Percent Canopy Cover
Center Tree
Grewia monticola
9
11
7
13
13
7
44
Other Species
Combretum molle
Elaeodendron transvaalense
Elaeodendron transvaalense
Grewia monticola
Euclea crispa
Rhus leptodictea
Rhus leptodictea
Acacia karoo
Acacia karoo
Acacia karoo
Unknown
Unknown
DBH (cm)
9.7
6.9
2.8
4
4
12.6
1.1
15.5
22.1
18.7
2.8
7.6
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Diplorhyncus condylocarpon
4
S 25°23.7917'
E 29°19.6422'
25% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
18.3
Other Species
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Sclerocarya birrea
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Acacia burkei
Acacia burkei
Acacia burkei
Combretum apiculatum
DBH (cm)
1.7
too small
4.6
too small
too small
too small
too small
25.4
3
Sighting
GPS Center Point
5
S 25°24.2316'
E 29°20.7997
50% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
15.7
Percent Canopy Cover
Percent Canopy Cover
Center Tree
Sclerocarya birrea
5
15
10
10
45
Other Species
Grewia flavescense
Ozora sphaerocarpa
Sclerocarya birrea
Bridelia mollis
Combretum apiculatum
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
DBH (cm)
too small
6.4
8.4
29.5
35.2
too small
2.5
too small
11.6
2.5
3.1
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Acacia caffra
6
S 25°24.4482'
E 29°20.8226'
70% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
32.2
Other Species
Combretum molle
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dead tree
DBH (cm)
45.1
6.5
16.5
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Ehretia obtusifolia
7
S 25°24.0576'
E 29°20.7453'
80% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
36
Other Species
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
DBH (cm)
2.7
46.5
6
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
Percent Canopy Cover
14
6
16
4
46
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Rhus leptodictea
Rhus leptodictea
Acacia karoo
Elaeodendron transvalense
Dichrostachys cinerea
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
30.2
2.5
4.4
too small
too small
Center Tree
Combretum molle
8
S 25°24.7864'
E 29°18.8492'
85% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
41.5
Other Species
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Rhus leptodictea
Rhus leptodictea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Protea caffra
DBH (cm)
7
2.7
too small
too small
too small
too small
14.3
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Acacia karoo
9
S 25°25.1429
E 29°18.4347
40% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
8.7
Other Species
Acacia nilotica
DBH (cm)
38.4
Percent Canopy Cover
Percent Canopy Cover
17
3
8
12
47
Acacia nilotica
Acacia nilotica
Acacia nilotica
Acacia nilotica
Acacia nilotica
Acacia nilotica
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Acacia burkei
Acacia tortillis
Acacia tortillis
Acacia tortillis
Dichrostachys cinerea
Sighting
GPS Center Point
4
9.9
10.6
9.5
13.2
2.6
too small
too small
7.2
11
13.4
too small
8.3
Center Tree
Acacia burkei
10
S 25°24.5182'
E 29°19.1461'
70% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
29.8
Other Species
Grewia monticola
Acacia burkei
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Ziziphus mucronata
Ziziphus mucronata
Ziziphus mucronata
Ziziphus mucronata
Terminalia prunoides
Terminalia prunoides
Terminalia prunoides
Terminalia prunoides
Terminalia prunoides
Terminalia prunoides
Terminalia prunoides
Terminalia prunoides
Terminalia prunoides
Terminalia prunoides
DBH (cm)
20.8
too small
too small
too small
2.7
too small
7.9
5.2
2.8
too small
too small
2.5
too small
too small
too small
too small
5
7.3
Percent Canopy Cover
14
6
48
Grewia flavecens
Grewia flavecens
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
Center Tree
Acacia nigrescens
11
S 25°24.6740'
E 29°20.7040'
50% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
28.4
Other Species
Acacia nigrescens
Acacia nigrescens
Combretum molle
Combretum apiculatum
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
DBH (cm)
21.8
6.4
too small
too small
too small
too small
4.4
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
7.4
3.5
Sighting
GPS Center Point
12
S 25°24.5647'
E 29°20.4156'
40% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
13.2
Percent Canopy Cover
Percent Canopy Cover
Center Tree
Combretum zeyheri
10
10
8
12
49
Other Species
Combretum zeyheri
Combretum zeyheri
Combretum zeyheri
Combretum zeyheri
Combretum zeyheri
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Gymnosporia senegalensis
Ozoroa paniculosa
Acacia burkei
DBH (cm)
21.9
5.6
8.9
5.9
14
2.8
3.4
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
4.5
3
24.3
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Combretum zeyheri
13
S 25°25.0235'
E 29°20.3015'
45% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
23
Other Species
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Grewia monticola
Lippa javanica
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Euclea crispa
DBH (cm)
19.8
16.2
18.6
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
9
11
50
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Acacia karoo
14
S 25°24.4608'
E 29°19.0876'
65% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
31.5
Other Species
Acacia sp.
Acacia sp.
Acacia sp.
Acacia sp.
Acacia sp.
Acacia sp.
Unknown
Unknown
DBH (cm)
3
too small
too small
4.8
6.7
6.4
3.5
10.8
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Acacia karoo
15
S 25°24.6185'
E 29°19.0235
45% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
32.5
Other Species
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Acacia karoo
Acacia karoo
Acacia karoo
Euclea crispa
DBH (cm)
11.5
too small
9.4
4.5
6
8.7
too small
too small
2.2
5.9
Percent Canopy Cover
Percent Canopy Cover
13
7
9
11
51
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Protea caffra
16
S 25°24.9654'
E 29°18.0033'
10% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
8.4
Other Species
Vangueira parvifolia
Sclerocarya birrea
Sclerocarya birrea
Sclerocarya birrea
Protea caffra
DBH (cm)
too small
too small
too small
26.9
too small
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Combretum zeyheri
17
S 25°24.3253'
E 29°20.7630'
85% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
20
Other Species
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Acacia nigrescens
Acacia nigrescens
Acacia nigrescens
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Bridelia mollis
Bridelia mollis
Salvadora persica
DBH (cm)
4.9
too small
11.4
2.8
too small
4
too small
7.3
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
11.4
3.8
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
Percent Canopy Cover
2
18
17
3
52
Salvadora persica
Flueggea virosa
Cordia ovalis
Tinnea rhodesiana
Tinnea rhodesiana
Tinnea rhodesiana
Gymnosporia tenuispina
Gymnosporia tenuispina
Ehretia amoena
Combretum zeyheri
Acacia burkei
Elaeodendron transvaalense
Elaeodendron transvaalense
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Unknown
Unknown
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
19
too small
too small
too small
2.8
too small
too small
13.5
26.1
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
11.5
too small
Center Tree
Acacia burkei
18
S 25°24.8283'
E 29°18.8042'
60% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
19.1
Other Species
Combretum apiculatum
DBH (cm)
28.3
Percent Canopy Cover
12
8
53
Combretum apiculatum
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Rhus pyroides
Rhus pyroides
Strychnos madagascariensis
Strychnos madagascariensis
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Acacia karoo
Dyplorhyncus condylocarpon
Sighting
GPS Center Point
4
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
7.1
19.7
2.9
20.8
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
6.6
4.8
6.3
too small
too small
too small
too small
99.4
Center Tree
Euclea crispa
19
S 25°24.9931'
E 29°18.3405'
50% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
7
Other Species
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Acacia karoo
DBH (cm)
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
30.2
Percent Canopy Cover
10
10
54
Acacia karoo
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Dichrostachys cinerea
Unknown dead tree
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
5.6
12.2
Center Tree
Combretum zeyheri
20
S 25°24.6407'
E 29°20.7522'
80% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
13.4
Other Species
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Acacia nilotica
Acacia nilotica
Acacia burkei
Acacia burkei
Acacia burkei
Acacia burkei
Sclerocarya birrea
Sclerocarya birrea
Combretum zeyheri
Dichrostachys cinerea
DBH (cm)
10.5
5.2
6.7
9
too small
too small
too small
too small
8.9
9.3
13.9
too small
31.7
8.3
3.6
20.7
9
29.9
too small
29.6
Percent Canopy Cover
16
4
55
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Ozora paniculosa
Acacia karoo
Combretum kraussii
Rhus pyroides
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
5.8
5
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Center Tree
Combretum apiculatum
21
S 25°24.7848'
E 29°20.4343'
40% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
29.7
Other Species
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
DBH (cm)
21.5
11
too small
6.5
13.2
2.5
3.4
9.2
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
8
12
56
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Sclerocarya birrea
Combretum zeyheri
Combretum zeyheri
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
too small
12.7
7.4
14.8
2.5
18.2
too small
14.3
too small
2.9
too small
too small
Center Tree
Dombeya rotundifolia
22
S 25°24.8258'
E 29°20.4275'
30% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
4.5
Other Species
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Acacia burkei
Acacia burkei
Elodendron transvalensis
Elodendron transvalensis
Elodendron transvalensis
Rhus pyroides
Acacia karoo
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
DBH (cm)
7.9
4.8
too small
too small
17.3
21
too small
too small
too small
too small
4.1
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
6
14
57
Combretum apiculatum
Ehretia rigida
Ehretia rigida
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Sclerocarya birrea
Lippa javanica
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Sighting
GPS Center Point
8.3
too small
too small
too small
too small
21.9
too small
4.1
too small
too small
too small
Center Tree
Combretum zeyheri
23
S 25°25.0247'
E 29°20.2721'
40% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
28.2
Other Species
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
DBH (cm)
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
8
12
58
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Lippa javanica
Combretum zeyheri
Combretum zeyheri
Euclea crispa
Dombeya rotundifolia
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
10
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
27.5
26.6
too small
22.2
Center Tree
Terminalia prunoides
24
S 25°24.0646'
E 29°20.7518'
60% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
22
Other Species
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
DBH (cm)
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
48.9
9.7
21.7
too small
too small
too small
too small
4.5
too small
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
12
8
59
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Grewia monticola
Combretum molle
Eleodendron transvaalensis
Eleodendron transvaalensis
Euclea undulata
Berchemia zaire
Ozoroa paniculosa
Acacia karoo
Acacia karoo
Acacia karoo
Acacia karoo
Rhus pyroides
Acacia burkei
Acacia burkei
Warburgia saltaris
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
16.9
8.1
too small
too small
44.8
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
6
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Center Tree
Combretum zeyheri
25
S 25°24.0658'
E 29°20.7500
40% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
32.1
Other Species
Croton menyharthii
Croton menyharthii
Ziziphus mucronata
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Acacia karoo
DBH (cm)
too small
too small
too small
7.3
too small
too small
too small
21.5
Percent Canopy Cover
8
12
60
Acacia karoo
Acacia karoo
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Rhus pyroides
Combretum apiculatum
Sighting
GPS Center Point
13.4
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
29.4
Center Tree
Combretum molle
26
S 25°24.3323'
E 29°20.7814'
80% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
32.9
Other Species
Grewia flavescens
Grewia flavescens
Grewia flavescens
Grewia flavescens
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Diplorhyncus condylocarpon
Acacia karoo
Acacia karoo
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
DBH (cm)
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
34.7
too small
too small
2.5
20.6
4.6
3.6
5.3
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
16
4
61
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Dichorstachys cinerea
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Acacia burkei
Combretum zeyheri
Lippa javanica
Rhus zaire
Rhus zaire
Grewia monticola
Warburgia salutaris
Warburgia salutaris
Warburgia salutaris
Flueggea virosa
Flueggea virosa
Combretum molle
Unknown
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
2.6
too small
too small
too small
too small
34.9
too small
too small
too small
10.8
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
41
too small
Center Tree
Acacia karoo
27
S 25°26.0198'
E 29°15.4815'
90% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
92.6
Other Species
Rhus pyroides
Rhus pyroides
DBH (cm)
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
18
2
62
Rhus pyroides
Rhus pyroides
Rhus pyroides
Combretum apiculatum
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Dichrostachys cinerea
Rhus leptodictea
Rhus leptodictea
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Center Tree
Sclerocarya birrea
28
S 25°24.3325'
E 29°20.9699'
90% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
39
Other Species
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
DBH (cm)
3.1
5.2
8
5
6.9
3.5
7.5
8.8
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
18
2
63
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
64
Dichrostachys cinerea
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Elaeodendron transvaalensis
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Combretum molle
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Euclea crispa
Ehretia rigida
Ehretia rigida
Grewia flavescens
Grewia flavescens
Grewia flavescens
Grewia flavescens
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Acacia burkei
Acacia burkei
Strychnos madagascariensis
Strychnos spinosa
Sclerocarya birrea
too small
4.4
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
7.9
4.5
8.5
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
3.4
2.9
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
65
Rhus pyroides
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Sighting
GPS Center Point
too small
3
9.1
18.7
5.2
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
Center Tree
Acacia nigrescens
29
S 25°23.9305'
E 29°20.5247'
30% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
24.7
Other Species
Acacia nigrescens
Acacia nigrescens
Acacia nigrescens
Acacia nigrescens
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Combretum apiculatum
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Lycium cinereum
DBH (cm)
8.3
8.4
25.8
too small
6.2
4.5
5.6
too small
too small
too small
2.7
5
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Percent Canopy Cover
30
S 25°24.9987'
E 29°18.0172'
40% Hits
Misses
6
14
8
12
66
Center Tree
Sclerocarya birrea
DBH (cm)
29.7
Other Species
Dombeya rotundifolia
Dombeya rotundifolia
Acacia burkei
Protea caffra
Protea caffra
Protea caffra
Protea caffra
Protea caffra
Protea caffra
Protea caffra
Protea caffra
DBH (cm)
24.3
7.3
7.2
too small
too small
20.9
4.3
6.5
5.7
6.1
14.4
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Dicrhostachys cinerea
31
S 25°24.7356'
E 29°20.5844'
70% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
15.3
Other Species
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Acacia nilotica
Acacia tortillis
Acacia tortillis
Acacia tortillis
Acacia tortillis
Rhus pyroides
DBH (cm)
6.2
3.6
4.9
36.6
2.7
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
too small
2.5
19.4
too small
too small
too small
Percent Canopy Cover
14
6
67
Sighting
GPS Center Point
Center Tree
Dichrostachys cinerea
32
S 25°24.4588'
E 29°21.0310'
90% Hits
Misses
DBH (cm)
20.4
Other Species
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Dichrostachys cinerea
Acacia burkei
Grewia monticola
Ozoroa paniculosa
Combretum apiculatum
Grewia flavescens
Peltophorum africanum
DBH (cm)
9.3
21.2
7.8
9.8
51.4
14.3
11.5
too small
too small
too small
too small
4.4
46.1
too small
10.7
Percent Canopy Cover
18
2
68