Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-15T14:18:51.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Translocation and introduction of the Zanzibar red colobus monkey: success and failure with an endangered island endemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2009

Thomas T. Struhsaker  and
Kirstin S. Siex
Thomas T. Struhsaker
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Anthropology, Duke University, PO Box 90383 Durham, NC 27708–0383, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Kirstin S. Siex
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Anthropology, Duke University, PO Box 90383 Durham, NC 27708–0383, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Zanzibar red colobus Procolobus kirkii is one of Africa's most endangered primates, with only c. 1500–2000 individuals remaining in the wild. The authors made preliminary surveys of three areas where this monkey was translocated or introduced in the 1970s and 1980s. It appears that only one of these releases was successful. A total of 67 animals were caught and translocated or introduced (including four that died during the process). Thirteen to 20 years later, 62–70 red colobus were located at the three sites; i. e. there had been no net gain in colobus numbers as a result of the translocations and introduction. One attempt apparently failed because of insufficient habitat, and another perhaps because of insufficient numbers ofcolobus or an imbalance in the age and sex composition of animals released. The one successful translocation involved moving a fairly large number of monkeys (36) into a forest with a relatively high diversity of tree species. In light of these findings, the authors recommend that far more attention be given to protecting the monkeys and their habitat where they currently exist, rather than spend time and money on translocations that are as likely to fail as to succeed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Oryx , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 277 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna and Flora International 1998

References

Beck, B.B., Rapaport, L.G. and Stanley, Price M.R. 1994. Reintroductions of captive-born animals. In Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals (eds Olney, P. J. S., Mace, G. M. and Feistner, A. T. C.), pp. 265–286. Chapman & Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beentje, H.J. 1990. A reconnaissance survey of Zanzibar forests and coastal thicket. Zanzibar Environmental Studies Series. Number 7. Commission for Lands and Environment, Zanzibar.Google Scholar
Caldecott, J. and Kavanagh, M. 1983. Can translocation help wild primates? Oryx, 17 (3), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IUCN. 1996. African Primates. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Revised Edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Pakenham, R.H.W. 1984. The mammals of Zanzibar and Pemba islands. Unpublished report. (In Zanzibar Department of Environment library.)Google Scholar
Siex, K.S. 1995. The Zanzibar red colobus monkey (Procolobus kirkii): ecology, demography and use of Cocos nucifera. MSc thesis, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Silkiluwasha, F. 1981. The distribution and conservation status of the Zanzibar red colobus. African journal of Ecology, 19, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struhsaker, T.T., Cooney, D.O. and Siex, K.S. 1997. Charcoal consumption by Zanzibar red colobus monkeys: its ecological and demographic consequences. International Journal of Primatology, 18 (1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struhsaker, T.T. and Siex, K.S. 1997. The Zanzibar red colobus monkey: conservation status of an endangered island endemic. African Primates, Newsletter of the African Section of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. 2 (2).Google Scholar
Strum, S. 1987. Translocation of three troups of baboons in Kenya: an update. International Journal of Primatology, 8, 426.Google Scholar