CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementWildlife Ecology and ConservationWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation

Where are the major gaps in the reserve network for Africa’s mammals?

Open access
Fjeldså, Jon, Burgess, Neil D., Blyth, Simon, de Klerk, Helen M.·2004·Oryx
DOI 10.1017/s0030605304000043
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The establishment of protected areas for wildlife conservation in Africa was motivated by a number of different reasons (including hunting, recreation and wildlife conservation). The current reserve network provides good coverage of the distributions of the 194 species of larger mammals (>3 kg) and 51 species of threatened larger mammals. However, it is less effective in covering the distribution of all 197 of Africa's threatened mammal species, which includes >140 smaller bodied species (<3 kg) often restricted to habitat patches. A fully comprehensive network of areas for the conservation of African mammals, especially those facing extinction, is not yet in place, and further reserves may be needed in the Horn of Africa (Somalia in particular), the Cameroon Highlands, parts of the eastern African coastal forests and Eastern Arc Mountains, and parts of the Albertine Rift Mountains. More and larger reserve areas are also required to adequately cover all the species of South Africa. Parts of these gaps are already covered by government forest reserves, and the importance of this reserve category for the conservation of African mammals, especially threatened species, needs to be better recognized. As many of the gaps in reserve coverage are in areas of high human population and good agricultural potential, conservation goals may be difficult to achieve unless we supplement traditional reserves with novel approaches to maintain natural habitats and wildlife outside reserves.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0030605304000043

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Private land will be central to conservation efforts.

    “and that private land will be central to conservation efforts.”

    From The impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zimbabwe (2016) · cites this paper as Fjeldså et al., 2004

    The Discussion says that off-reserve conservation and maintaining natural habitats in farmland areas will be important for Africa’s threatened mammals. It does not identify that land as privately owned or say private land specifically will be central to conservation efforts. The indexed passages provide no page number. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Balmford, A., Leader-Williams, N. & Green, M.J.B. (1992) Protected areas of Afrotropical forest: history, status and prospects. In Tropical Rain Forests: An Atlas for Conservation, Vol. 2 (eds M. Collins & J.A. Sayer), pp. 69-80.
  2. Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (1999) Communities, wildlife and the 'new conservation' in Africa. Journal of International Development, 11, 277-286.
  3. MacKinnon, J. & MacKinnon, K. (1986) Review of the Protected Area System in the Afrotropical Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
  4. Oates, J. (1999) Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies Are Failing in West Africa. California University Press, Berkley, USA.
  5. Sandwith, T., Shine, C., Hamilton, L. & Sheppard, D. (2001) Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Cooperation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fjeldså, J., Burgess, N. D., Blyth, S., & de Klerk, H. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (GB)
ORCID
Fjeldså, Jon
Venue
Oryx
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2004-01
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
17-25
ISSN
  • 0030-6053 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-3008
DOI
10.1017/s0030605304000043
OpenAlex
W2136758358
Cited by
71
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 42 d)
Locations
  • Oryx (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Keywords
protected area network, African mammals, threatened species, small mammals, Horn of Africa, Cameroon highlands, Eastern Arc Mountains, Albertine Rift, South Africa, forest reserves, human population pressure, wildlife conservation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review