Protected Apes, Unprotected Forest: Composition, Structure and Diversity of Riverine Forest Fragments and Their Conservation Value in Uganda

Abstract

Small forest fragments are common in anthropogenic landscapes in the tropics. These have conservation value if they provide habitat for threatened wildlife and maintain connectivity between larger habitats. Riverine forests have particular ‘corridor’ potential due to their linear shape, but are under-studied in many regions. We surveyed trees in riverine fragments in Bulindi, an anthropogenic landscape 25 km south of the Budongo Forest in western Uganda, to determine their condition and assess their value for wildlife, particularly endangered chimpanzees Pan troglodytes. We assessed tree composition, structure and diversity and compared results with a previous survey made in Budongo, the nearest main forest block. Riverine fragments were considerably less species-dense and species-rich than Budongo. Community composition differed markedly between sites and there was virtually no overlap in common species. Common trees in fragments were characteristic of East African swamp and groundwater forests (e.g. the palm Phoenix reclinata) and the dominant tree family was the Moraceae, members of which produce fleshy fruits attractive to frugivores (e.g. figs). Important fruit foods for chimpanzees differed between habitats. While basal area of important fruit trees was comparable, overall density was greater in fragments. Our data suggest the riverine fragments offer a relatively food-dense habitat for chimpanzees and other frugivores. Small riverine forests have little or no protection regionally and are being extensively logged and cleared for agriculture. Species logged for timber in Bulindi included important chimpanzee fruit trees. Unless conservation projects successfully reverse current trends, the value of the riverine corridors for maintaining connectivity between main forest blocks is limited.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 96 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.