Checklist of small mammals of West-Bugwe forest reserve, Uganda

Enregistrements de données

Les données de cette ressource checklist ont été publiées sous forme d'une Archive Darwin Core (Darwin Core Archive ou DwC-A), le format standard pour partager des données de biodiversité en tant qu'ensemble d'un ou plusieurs tableurs de données. Le tableur de données du cœur de standard (core) contient 11 enregistrements.

Cet IPT archive les données et sert donc de dépôt de données. Les données et métadonnées de la ressource sont disponibles pour téléchargement dans la section téléchargements. Le tableau des versions liste les autres versions de chaque ressource rendues disponibles de façon publique et permet de tracer les modifications apportées à la ressource au fil du temps.

Versions

Le tableau ci-dessous n'affiche que les versions publiées de la ressource accessibles publiquement.

Comment citer

Les chercheurs doivent citer cette ressource comme suit:

Barahukwa A, Mbiro A, Lindsell J, Kaweesa S, Musiime A, Matthews R, Dickinson C, Baltzer M, Tim D, Howard P (2023). Checklist of small mammals of West-Bugwe forest reserve, Uganda. Version 1.1. A Rocha Uganda. Checklist dataset. https://cloud.gbif.org/africa/resource?r=checklist_of_mammals_in_westbugwe_forestreservereserve&v=1.1

Droits

Les chercheurs doivent respecter la déclaration de droits suivante:

L’éditeur et détenteur des droits de cette ressource est A Rocha Uganda. Ce travail est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0.

Enregistrement GBIF

Cette ressource a été enregistrée sur le portail GBIF, et possède l'UUID GBIF suivante : 650b8383-0d1b-49b8-bb91-2b2c7b92a4fd.  A Rocha Uganda publie cette ressource, et est enregistré dans le GBIF comme éditeur de données avec l'approbation du GBIF Uganda.

Mots-clé

Checklist; small mammals; Uganda; trapping;

Contacts

Couverture géographique

The data was collected from West Bugwe Forest Reserve in Uganda.

Couverture taxonomique

A total of 16 small mammals were identified to species level.

Couverture temporelle

Données sur le projet

A Rocha Uganda is part of the eleven organizations that came together to mobilize, share and use biodiversity data across four African countries to help with the conservation of four forested African landscapes. These landscapes cover over 450,000 hectares of tropical forests in four countries where the A Rocha family is undertaking conservation work. The project includes five of the organizations belonging to the A Rocha family (i.e., A Rocha Uganda, A Rocha International, A Rocha Kenya, Eden Care Initiative-Nigeria, and A Rocha Ghana) as partners. Other partner organizations include; National Museum of Kenya, African Butterfly Research Institute (ABRI), Kenya Wildlife Service, National Forest Authority in Uganda, Council for Scientific Industrial Research- Food Research Institute in Ghana and A.P Leventis Ornithological Research Institute in Nigeria. With funding from JRS Biodiversity Foundation and European Union (https://european-union.europa.eu/) through the Biodiversity Information for Development (BID) program of GBIF, a regional project “Raising the profile of data for the conservation of four forested African landscapes” was initiated and its seeking to utilize biodiversity data to better conserve biodiversity-rich but threatened forests of Atewa in Ghana; key coastal forests of Kenya (Dakatcha, Taita Hills, Shimba Hills and Kaya Forests); Kwande and Oban-liku in Nigeria and Eastern Uganda key forests (West Bugwe and Igwe-Luvunya, South Busoga, Bukaleba, Mabira, Mukono, Mpanga, Mpigi and Zika Forest Reserves). The dataset “Checklist of small mammals in West-Bugwe Forest Reserve” reports data collected under a programme of Uganda Forest Department’s Natural Forest Conservation Section to undertake biodiversity surveys in 65 of Uganda’s forests.

Les personnes impliquées dans le projet:

Méthodes d'échantillonnage

A combination of trap types was used, including Sherman, Longworth, pitfall and break back traps. The latter included locally made rat traps (18 x 8 cm), Museum Specials (14 x 7 cm), and large and small commercially available break back traps from the USA (18 x 8 cm and 10 x 4 cm respectively). Pitfall traps were used with the particular intention of collecting shrews. These traps consisted of a drift fence constructed from metal wire mesh (mesh size 5 mm x 5 mm) approximately 30 cm in height and 20 to 25 metres in length. The fence acted as a barrier to foraging animals, guiding them into sunken 5 litre plastic buckets (20 cm diameter x 25 cm depth) situated every five metres. The pitfall fences were situated in a variety of forest habitats concentrating on undisturbed forest and sites in close proximity to streams. In order to establish a degree of uniformity and enable comparison of data between sites, a standardised trapping regime was adopted at each site. A variety of bait types was used in order to catch the full range of rodent and shrew species, and traps were set in a range of different habitat types and locations, ten metres apart according to the following guidelines: • Fifty percent of traps were set at ground level in a variety of habitats, including disturbed and open areas. Two-thirds of these were baited with peanut butter and oatmeal or termites and one-third with rehydrated fish. • Forty percent of traps were set near streams or close to the water’s edge, where possible. Of these traps, half were baited with rehydrated fish and half with peanut butter and oatmeal, or peanut butter and termites. If there were no streams in the vicinity of the trapping area the traps were set as detailed above, in a variety of different habitat types. • Ten percent of traps were situated 1-6 metres above ground level in trees. Half of these traps were baited with mashed banana and the other half with peanut butter and oatmeal.

Description des étapes de la méthode:

1. The national survey of Uganda forests collected data in 65 forests. The original field survey results including all data were published in a series of reports by the Forest Department of Uganda (Howard et al. 1996). Compilation of species lists enabled comparison with other forests and provided a basis for highlighting species that are of particular biogeographical or conservation significance. All the small mammal species currently known from Uganda were classified according to their habitat requirements using Rosevear (1969), Kingdon (1971-74), Delany (1975), Hutterer (1987) and Skinner and Smithers (1990). This form of analysis assists in classifying forests and also in determining the importance of an individual forest to a defined group of species with a known habitat requirement. As this study is concerned mainly with forest habitats, the emphasis was placed particularly on forest habitat-type divisions, whilst non-forest habitats tended to be grouped under one classification as open habitat. The following ecological type categories are distinguished: • Forest-dependent species (F-species) are largely confined to closed-canopy forest and would be unlikely to tolerate any form of major large-scale habitat modification, although they may persist in secondary forest and isolated forest fragments. • Forest non-dependent species (f-species) are not restricted to closed-canopy forest and may occur in forest edge, gallery forest and dense savannah woodland. • Non-forest (open habitat) species are characteristic of open grasslands and semi-arid environments (O), aquatic or swamp habitats (A) or occur in a wide range of habitats (W). Species are further classified according to whether they occur only in highland areas above 1500 m (H) or lowland areas below 1500 m (L). The lack of knowledge concerning the ecological requirements of many of the small mammal species, particularly the shrews, makes it impossible to classify all species and nine shrews and four rodents remain of unknown ecological type (U). Using the daily trapping records, species accumulation rates were examined in order to estimate the extent to which further trapping would add to the species list, and facilitate comparisons of species richness between forests for any given level of sampling effort. Electronic copies of the written reports and a separate electronic database of records were made available for this purpose by the original authors of the reports (Peter Howard).We extracted the mammal records from the electronic database and supplemented these with location data provided in the narrative reports. The location data in the original reports were provided in Military Grid Reference System. These were first converted to standard UTM coordinates, noting that the MGRS was using an old datum (MGRS-AL scheme also called "MGRS old"). UTM coordinates were then converted to decimal degrees using an online conversion spreadsheet (https://giscrack.com/download-excel-template-convert-geographic-coordinates-utm/). The converted locations were then checked against Google Maps imagery to confirm that a satisfactory conversion had been made.

Citations bibliographiques

1. Davies, G. and Vanden Berghe, E. (1994). Check-list of the Mammals of East Africa. East African Natural History Society, Nairobi, Kenya.
2. Delany, M.J. (1975). The Rodents of Uganda. British Natural History Museum, London.
3. Dollman, G. (1915-16). On the African shrews belonging to the genus Crocidura. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 8: 15-17.
4. Davenport, T., & Howard, P., (Eds.). (1996). West Bugwe and Igwe-Luvunya Forest Reserve: Biodiversity Report no. 29. Forest Department, Kampala.
5. Howard, P. C. and Davenport, T. R. B. (1996). Forest Biodiversity Reports, vols. 1–33. Uganda Forest Department, Kampala, Uganda.
6. Grubb, P. (1983). The biogeographic significance of forest mammals in eastern Africa. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international colloquium on the ecology and taxonomy of African small mammals, Antwerp, 20-24 July 1981, Ed. E. van der Straeten, W. N. Verheyen and F. de Vree, pp. 75-85. Annales, Musee Royal de l'Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques. 237 (i-iv), 1-227.
7. Howell, K. and Kingdon, J. (1993). Mammals in the forests of East Africa. In: Lovett, J.C. and S.K. Waser (Eds.). Biogeography and Ecology of the Rain Forests of Eastern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8. Hutterer, R. et al. (1987). A checklist of shrews of Rwanda and biogeographical considerations of African Soricidae. Bonn. Zoo. Beitr. 38 : 155 - 172.
9. Kingdon, J. (1971-74). East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution, Vols. I, IIA and IIIB. Academic Press, London.
10. McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R., Reid, W.V., Mittermeier, R.A. and Werner, T.B. (1990). Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
11. Meetser, A.J. and Setser, A.W. (Eds.), (1971-77). The Mammals of Africa: An Identification Manual. Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC, USA.
12. Nicoll, M.E. and Rathbun, G. B. (1990). African Insectivora and Elephant shrews: An Action Plan for their Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
13. Rodgers, W.A., Owen, C.F. and Homewood, K.M. (1982). Biogeography of East African forest mammals. J. Biogeography. 9: 41-54.
14. Rosevear, D. (1969). Rodents of West Africa. British Natural History Museum, London.
15. Skinner, J.D. and Smithers, R.N.H. (1990). The Mammals of the Southern African Sub-Region. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, RSA.
16. Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (1993). Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Second Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, in association with American Society of Mammalogists, Washington and London.

Métadonnées additionnelles