African Lion Population Estimates in Tanzania’s Ruaha National Park

Tanzania is considered a country with the largest number of African lions (Panthera leo). However, the continued absence of ecological population estimates and understanding of the associated factors influencing lion distribution hinders the development of conservation planning. This is particularly true in the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape, where it was estimated that more than 10% of the global lion population currently resides. By using a call-back survey method, we aimed to provide population estimates (population size and density) of African lions in the Ruaha National Park, between wet (March 2019) and dry (October 2019) seasons. We also assessed the key factors that influenced the distribution of the observed lions towards call-back stations. Ferreira & Funston’s (2010) formula was used to calculate population size and in turn used to estimate density in the sampled area, while the Generalized Linear Model (GLMM) with zero-inflated Poisson error distribution was used to determine factors that influence the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. The population size we calculated for the sampled area of 3137.2 km2 revealed 286 lions (95% CI, 236 - 335) during the wet season, and 196 lions (95% CI, 192 - 200) during the dry season. The density of lions was 9.1/100 km2 during the wet season, and 6.3/100 km2 during the dry season. Distance to water source had a significant negative effect on the distribution of the observed lions to the call-back stations, while habitat had a marginal effect. Our findings show that, although lion population estimates were larger during the wet season than the dry season, the season had no effect on the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. We suggest that the proximity to water sources is important in study design. Further, we suggest that density and population size are useful indices in identifying conservation area priorities and lion coexistence strategies

A systematic review of risk factors associated with road traffic crashes and injuries among commercial motorcycle drivers

To effectively reduce road traffic crashes (RTCs) and injuries interventions should be based on firm evidence regarding risk factors of RTCs and injuries in that specific population. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review to determine risk factors of RTCs and injuries among commercial motorcycle drivers. Searches were performed from inception to May 2022 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO and Cinahl, along with registers and reference lists. Inclusion criteria were commercial motorcycle drivers, quantitative observational studies, and RTCs and injuries. The search resulted in 1546 articles, of which 20 met the relevance and quality criteria. Of the 20 articles, 17 were cross-sectional, 2 were case-control studies, and one was a cohort study. Close to half of all articles (9) came from sub-Saharan Africa. Risk factors with consistent association with RTCs and injuries were young age, low education level, alcohol consumption, speeding, mobile phone use, non-helmet use, risky driving behaviours and long working hours. There was inconclusive evidence for driver’s training, work schedules, motorcycle ownership, experience, dependents number, and marital status. More robust designs such as case-control or longitudinal studies are required to gain a comprehensive understanding of the antecedents of RTCs among commercial motorcycle drivers.</p

African lion population estimates in Tanzania’s Ruaha National Park

Tanzania is considered a country with the largest number of African lions (Panthera leo). However, the continued absence of ecological population estimates and understanding of the associated factors influencing lion distribution hinders the development of conservation planning. This is particularly true in the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape, where it was estimated that more than 10% of the global lion population currently resides. By using a call-back survey method, we aimed to provide population estimates (population size and density) of African lions in the Ruaha National Park, between wet (March 2019) and dry (October 2019) seasons. We also assessed the key factors that influenced the distribution of the observed lions towards call-back stations. Ferreira & Funston’s (2010) formula was used to calculate population size and in turn used to estimate density in the sampled area, while the Generalized Linear Model (GLMM) with zero-inflated Poisson error distribution was used to determine factors that influence the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. The population size we calculated for the sampled area of 3137.2 km2 revealed 286 lions (95% CI, 236 - 335) during the wet season, and 196 lions (95% CI, 192 - 200) during the dry season. The density of lions was 9.1/100 km2 during the wet season, and 6.3/100 km2 during the dry season. Distance to water source had a significant negative effect on the distribution of the observed lions to the call-back stations, while habitat had a marginal effect. Our findings show that, although lion population estimates were larger during the wet season than the dry season, the season had no effect on the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. We suggest that the proximity to water sources is important in study design. Further, we suggest that density and population size are useful indices in identifying conservation area priorities and lion coexistence strategies

Governance and Conservation Effectiveness in Protected Areas and Indigenous and Locally Managed Areas

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu CEX2019-000940-MIncreased conservation action to protect more habitat and species is fueling a vigorous debate about the relative effectiveness of different sorts of protected areas. Here we review the literature that compares the effectiveness of protected areas managed by states and areas managed by Indigenous peoples and/or local communities. We argue that these can be hard comparisons to make. Robust comparative case studies are rare, and the epistemic communities producing them are fractured by language, discipline, and geography. Furthermore the distinction between these different forms of protection on the ground can be blurred. We also have to be careful about the value of this sort of comparison as the consequences of different forms of conservation for people and nonhuman nature are messy and diverse. Measures of effectiveness, moreover, focus on specific dimensions of conservation performance, which can omit other important dimensions. With these caveats, we report on findings observed by multiple study groups focusing on different regions and issues whose reports have been compiled into this article. There is a tendency in the data for community-based or co-managed governance arrangements to produce beneficial outcomes for people and nature. These arrangements are often accompanied by struggles between rural groups and powerful states. Findings are highly context specific and global generalizations have limited value

Governance and conservation effectiveness in protected areas and indigenous and locally managed areas

D.B. would like to acknowledge the funded support of the European Union (ERC, CONDJUST, 101054259). D.B. would further like to acknowledge that this work contributes to ICTA-UAB “María de Maeztu” Programme for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M). N.J. would like to acknowledge that financial support was provided by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research programme (Project FIDELIO, grant agreement no. 802605).Increased conservation action to protect more habitat and species is fueling a vigorous debate about the relative effectiveness of different sorts of protected areas. Here we review the literature that compares the effectiveness of protected areas managed by states and areas managed by Indigenous peoples and/or local communities. We argue that these can be hard comparisons to make. Robust comparative case studies are rare, and the epistemic communities producing them are fractured by language, discipline, and geography. Furthermore the distinction between these different forms of protection on the ground can be blurred. We also have to be careful about the value of this sort of comparison as the consequences of different forms of conservation for people and nonhuman nature are messy and diverse. Measures of effectiveness, moreover, focus on specific dimensions of conservation performance, which can omit other important dimensions. With these caveats, we report on findings observed by multiple study groups focusing on different regions and issues whose reports have been compiled into this article. There is a tendency in the data for community-based or co-managed governance arrangements to produce beneficial outcomes for people and nature. These arrangements are often accompanied by struggles between rural groups and powerful states. Findings are highly context specific and global generalizations have limited value.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Afri-Can Forum 2

CITATION: Mukudu, H., et al. 2016. Afri-Can Forum 2. BMC Infectious Diseases, 16:315, doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1466-6.The original publication is available at https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.comENGLISH ABSTRACT: We are pleased to present peer reviewed forum proceedings of the 2nd synchronicity forum of GHRI/CHVIfunded Canadian and African HIV prevention and vaccine teams Forum objectives ∙GHRI-funded capacity building and HIV prevention research teams presented highlights of achievements ∙Teams discussed how to jointly build on achievements for sustainability ∙Provided an opportunity for inter-team collaboration, synchronize best approach to capacity building, mentoring of new researchers and building leadership ∙Provided opportunities for informal discussions and networking among the teams. ∙Teams learnt about recent advances in the area of African regulatory and ethics review process ∙The forum proceedings was a special supplement in an openaccess journal was producedhttps://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-16-supplement-2Publisher's versio