DataSheet2.PDF

<p>Roads impact wildlife through a range of mechanisms from habitat loss and decreased landscape connectivity to direct mortality through wildlife-vehicle collisions (roadkill). These collisions have been rated amongst the highest modern risks to wildlife. With the development of “citizen science” projects, in which members of the public participate in data collection, it is now possible to monitor the impacts of roads over scales far beyond the limit of traditional studies. However, the reliability of data provided by citizen scientists for roadkill studies remains largely untested. This study used a dataset of 2,666 roadkill reports on national and regional roads in South Africa (total length ~170,000 km) over 3 years. We first compared roadkill data collected from trained road patrols operating on a major highway with data submitted by citizen scientists on the same road section (431 km). We found that despite minor differences, the broad spatial and taxonomic patterns were similar between trained reporters and untrained citizen scientists. We then compared data provided by two groups of citizen scientists across South Africa: (1) those working in the zoology/conservation sector (that we have termed “regular observers,” whose reports were considered to be more accurate due to their knowledge and experience), and (2) occasional observers, whose reports required verification by an expert. Again, there were few differences between the type of roadkill report provided by regular and occasional reporters; both types identified the same area (or cluster) where roadkill was reported most frequently. However, occasional observers tended to report charismatic and easily identifiable species more often than road patrols or regular observers. We conclude that citizen scientists can provide reliable data for roadkill studies when it comes to identifying general patterns and high-risk areas. Thus, citizen science has the potential to be a valuable tool for identifying potential roadkill hotspots and at-risk species across large spatial and temporal scales that are otherwise impractical and expensive when using standard data collection methodologies. This tool allows researchers to extract data and focus their efforts on potential areas and species of concern, with the ultimate goal of implementing effective roadkill-reduction measures.</p

DataSheet1.PDF

<p>Roads impact wildlife through a range of mechanisms from habitat loss and decreased landscape connectivity to direct mortality through wildlife-vehicle collisions (roadkill). These collisions have been rated amongst the highest modern risks to wildlife. With the development of “citizen science” projects, in which members of the public participate in data collection, it is now possible to monitor the impacts of roads over scales far beyond the limit of traditional studies. However, the reliability of data provided by citizen scientists for roadkill studies remains largely untested. This study used a dataset of 2,666 roadkill reports on national and regional roads in South Africa (total length ~170,000 km) over 3 years. We first compared roadkill data collected from trained road patrols operating on a major highway with data submitted by citizen scientists on the same road section (431 km). We found that despite minor differences, the broad spatial and taxonomic patterns were similar between trained reporters and untrained citizen scientists. We then compared data provided by two groups of citizen scientists across South Africa: (1) those working in the zoology/conservation sector (that we have termed “regular observers,” whose reports were considered to be more accurate due to their knowledge and experience), and (2) occasional observers, whose reports required verification by an expert. Again, there were few differences between the type of roadkill report provided by regular and occasional reporters; both types identified the same area (or cluster) where roadkill was reported most frequently. However, occasional observers tended to report charismatic and easily identifiable species more often than road patrols or regular observers. We conclude that citizen scientists can provide reliable data for roadkill studies when it comes to identifying general patterns and high-risk areas. Thus, citizen science has the potential to be a valuable tool for identifying potential roadkill hotspots and at-risk species across large spatial and temporal scales that are otherwise impractical and expensive when using standard data collection methodologies. This tool allows researchers to extract data and focus their efforts on potential areas and species of concern, with the ultimate goal of implementing effective roadkill-reduction measures.</p

Current conservation status of the Blue Swallow <i>Hirundo atrocaerulea</i> Sundevall 1850 in Africa

<div><p><b>The global Blue Swallow <i>Hirundo atrocaerulea</i> was classified as Vulnerable in 2010 on account of its small and rapidly declining population estimated at less than 1 500 pairs. We undertook this study to gain a better understanding of the current status and threats facing this migratory species. Three previously unknown areas that might be part of the species' non-breeding range were identified in Kenya and northern Tanzania. Within its breeding range we identified three previously unknown areas of potentially suitable habitat, one in Tanzania and two in Malawi, which require further exploration. Population viability assessment predicted that the Blue Swallow population will decline by 8% in 10 years. The overall probability of extinction of the species in the wild is 3%. Minimum viable population size analysis suggests that a goal for the long-term conservation of the Blue Swallow should be to mitigate current threats that are driving declines such that the population increases to a minimum of 3 600 individuals. This should consist of at least 900 individuals in each of the four clusters identified, along with a minimum of 500 individuals in at least one of the meta-populations per cluster. The four clusters are located in (1) the southeasten Democratic Republic of the Congo, (2) highlands of southern Tanzania and northern Malawi, (3) eastern highlands of Zimbabwe and (4) South Africa and Swaziland. The current proportions of the Blue Swallow population in strictly protected and unprotected areas on their breeding grounds are 53% and 47%, respectively, whereas on their non-breeding grounds the corresponding percentages are 25% and 75%, respectively. Our reassessment of the Blue Swallow's risk of extinction indicates that it continues to qualify as Vulnerable according to the IUCN/SSC criteria C2a(i).</b></p></div