Scientifica

Wildlife Conservation in Tropical Savanna Ecosystems

Lead Guest Editor: Edson GandiwaGuest Editors: Never Muboko and John. F. Mupangwa

Wildlife Conservation in TropicalSavanna Ecosystems

Scientifica

Wildlife Conservation in TropicalSavanna Ecosystems

Lead Guest Editor: Edson GandiwaGuest Editors: Never Muboko and John. F. Mupangwa

Copyright © 2019 Hindawi. All rights reserved.

This is a special issue published in “Scientifica.” All articles are open access articles distributed under the Creative Commons Attribu-tion License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Contents

Wildlife Conservation in Tropical Savanna EcosystemsEdson Gandiwa , Never Muboko , and John F. MupangwaEditorial (1 page), Article ID 1573593, Volume 2019 (2019)

Local Ecological Knowledge on Climate Change and Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Strategies PromoteResilience in the Middle Zambezi Biosphere Reserve, ZimbabweOlga Laiza Kupika , Edson Gandiwa , Godwell Nhamo, and Shakkie KativuResearch Article (15 pages), Article ID 3069254, Volume 2019 (2019)

Occurrence of ClinostomumMetacercariae inOreochromis mossambicus fromMashoko Dam,MasvingoProvince, ZimbabweCasper Mutengu and Wilson MhlangaResearch Article (6 pages), Article ID 9565049, Volume 2018 (2019)

Effect of Soil Type and Foliar Factors on the Distribution of Imbrasia belina in the SoutheasternLowveld of ZimbabweEdward Mufandaedza , Doreen Z. Moyo , and Paul MakoniResearch Article (8 pages), Article ID 9273184, Volume 2018 (2019)

Towards an Understanding of Conservation-Based Costs, Benefits, and Attitudes of Local People LivingAdjacent to Save Valley Conservancy, ZimbabweGiven Matseketsa , Gladman Chibememe, Never Muboko , Edson Gandiwa ,and Kudakwashe TakarindaResearch Article (9 pages), Article ID 6741439, Volume 2018 (2019)

More than Just Story Telling: A Review of Biodiversity Conservation and Utilisation from Precolonial toPostcolonial ZimbabweTanyaradzwa ChigondaReview Article (11 pages), Article ID 6214318, Volume 2018 (2019)

An Assessment of Forage Selection by Giraffe Introduced into Umfurudzi Park, Northern ZimbabweTakunda V. Munyaka and Edson GandiwaResearch Article (5 pages), Article ID 9062868, Volume 2018 (2019)

EditorialWildlife Conservation in Tropical Savanna Ecosystems

Edson Gandiwa ,1 Never Muboko ,1 and John F. Mupangwa2

1School of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe2Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Namibia, Neudamm Campus,Windhoek, Namibia

Correspondence should be addressed to Edson Gandiwa; egandiwa@gmail.com

Received 16 December 2018; Accepted 16 December 2018; Published 14 March 2019

Copyright © 2019 Edson Gandiwa et al. %is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

%e objective of this special issue is to address the diverseissues and developments related to wildlife conservation intropical savanna ecosystems, given the challenges related toclimate change, habitat fragmentation, illegal hunting andtrade in wildlife products, and sustainable utilization. Manypapers were submitted, and after a thorough peer-reviewprocess, six papers, i.e., five original research papers and onereview paper, were selected to be included in this specialissue. %ese research studies provide invaluable insights intounderstanding contemporary issues in wildlife conservationand scientific evidence for adaptive management and sus-tainable conservation.

%e paper by V. K. Munyaka and E. Gandiwa presents anassessment of how the giraffe species (Giraffa camelopar-dalis) acclimatizes to a new ecosystem after introduction andwhich forage species it selects using the focal observationmethod.

%e paper by T. Chigonda reviews the relationshipsbetween human livelihoods and biodiversity conservation inthe rural areas of a semi-arid savanna and highlights theneed for complete devolution of natural resource ownershipand management to the grassroots levels in order to fullyrealise social and ecological sustainability.

%e paper by G. Matseketsa et al. proposes a more so-cially and economically inclusive management approach,based on a stakeholder-driven access and benefit sharingframework, as essential in promoting a more positive formof reciprocity towards protected areas and natureconservation.

%e paper by E. Mufandaedza et al. highlights variabilityin the influence of soil parameters (i.e., soil texture, soil pH,

and available nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)) and level oftannins in tree barks in the distribution of mopane worms(Imbrasia belina) in savanna ecosystems.

%e paper by C. Mutengu and W. Mhlanga analyses fishhealth and water quality and proposes the importance oflong-term monitoring of freshwater ecosystems for sus-tainable fisheries management.

%e paper by O. L. Kupika et al. illuminates the im-portance of local ecological knowledge held by rural com-munities adjacent to large protected areas on climatechange- and ecosystem-based adaptation strategies and howthis facilitates resilience in a changing environment.

Conflicts of Interest

%e editors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to all the authors who contributed tothis special issue and our expert reviewers who providedvital constructive feedback and criticism throughout thereview process.

Edson GandiwaNever Muboko

John F. Mupangwa

HindawiScientificaVolume 2019, Article ID 1573593, 1 pagehttps://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1573593

Research ArticleLocal Ecological Knowledge on Climate Change andEcosystem-Based Adaptation Strategies Promote Resilience inthe Middle Zambezi Biosphere Reserve, Zimbabwe

Olga Laiza Kupika ,1 Edson Gandiwa ,1 Godwell Nhamo,2 and Shakkie Kativu 3

1Chinhoyi University of Technology, School of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe2Exxaro Chair in Business & Climate Change, Institute for Corporate Citizenship, University of South Africa, P.O. Box 392,UNISA 0003, Pretoria, South Africa3Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe

Correspondence should be addressed to Olga Laiza Kupika; olgal.kupika@gmail.com

Received 11 May 2018; Revised 23 October 2018; Accepted 12 November 2018; Published 11 March 2019

Academic Editor: Giuseppe Comi

Copyright © 2019 Olga Laiza Kupika et al. +is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

Understanding local community perceptions on impacts, causes, and responses to climate change is vital for promotion ofcommunity resilience towards climate change. +is study explored local ecological knowledge (LEK) held by local communitieson climate change trends and impacts in the Middle Zambezi Biosphere Reserve (MZBR), Zimbabwe. +e objectives of the studywere to (i) investigate local community perceptions on trends and causes of climate change, (ii) identify biophysical impacts ofclimate change at the local level, and (iii) explore the ecosystem-based adaptation strategies towards climate change. +e studyused a mixed methods approach where a household questionnaire survey (n � 320), key informant interviews (n � 12), and focusgroup discussions (n � 8) were used to collect data between April 2015 and October 2016. Results from the study show that localcommunities have observed decreasing rainfall and increasing temperatures as key indicators of climate change. Local com-munities observed water scarcity, changes in vegetation phenology, livestock and wildlife mortalities, and food shortages due todrought as the major impacts on their livelihoods. LEK can contribute to adaptive management strategies that enhance resilienceof socioecological systems (SES) in the face of climate change by providing information on the status and use of biophysicalcomponents of the environment and by highlighting potential local adaptation strategies that can sustain key livelihood practices.

1. Introduction

Communities from different parts of the world use localknowledge about ecosystems to recognize and respond tothe impacts of climate change and variability [1]. Africanrural communities have been documented as constructingclimate change realities based on their experiences of theimpacts and effects [2]. Although the observation of globalclimate change has been largely based on meteorologicaldata, there is paucity of information on how humans uselocal ecological knowledge to recognize and respond to suchchanges [3].+is calls for research to explore the role of localculture in identifying and responding to threats imposed bythe changing climate. Adger et al. [4] suggest that local

communities could interpret and construct climate changetrends and local indicators within a cultural setting. +eUnited Nations (UN) recognizes the significant role playedby indigenous knowledge, cultures, and traditional practicesin promoting sustainable development, equity, and man-agement of the environment [5]. Adger et al. [4] furtherargue that since culture is embedded in societal modes ofproduction, consumption, lifestyles, and social organization,it should be recognized in understanding both mitigationand adaptation to climate change. Understanding andbuilding upon perceptions, experiences, and IK on climatechange can contribute towards strengthening the resilienceof poor societies who are characterized by weak in-frastructure and economic well-being [6].

HindawiScientificaVolume 2019, Article ID 3069254, 15 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3069254

Traditional knowledge is derived from indigenousknowledge systems (IKSs), the designation that is usedto refer to the modus operandi and processes that theindigenous peoples use to harness local knowledge [7].Local/traditional/indigenous traditional knowledge is de-fined as the intellectual behavior and beliefs of indigenoussocieties or local information about the relationship ofliving beings (including humans) with one another andwith their environment [8]. +e knowledge exists and isdeveloped, accumulated, and transmitted culturallythrough local community experiences and know-howacross generations [8, 9]. Also, known as indigenoustechnical science, indigenous knowledge is dynamic and isinformed by local communities’ interactions with theirlocal biophysical and social environment [10]. Indigenousknowledge encompasses interrelated subsets of local eco-logical knowledge (LEK), seasonal knowledge, and phe-nological knowledge [11].

Local ecological knowledge (LEK) refers to knowledge,practices, and beliefs shared among local resource usersregarding ecological interaction within ecosystems [12]. LEKcomprises people’s lived experiences and their dialecticalinteraction with the natural environment [13]. +us, localknowledge is a key component of integrated ecosystem andcommunity-based adaptation strategies. +e Convention ofBiological Diversity (CBD) [14] defines ecosystem-basedadaptation (EbA) as the use of biodiversity and ecosystemservices in an overall adaptation strategy. Reid et al. [15]defines community-based adaptation as a community-ledprocess, based on communities’ priorities, needs, knowl-edge, and capacities, which should empower people to planfor and cope with the impacts of climate change. EbA in-cludes approaches such as the sustainable management,conservation, and restoration of ecosystems to provideservices that help people adapt to the adverse effects ofclimate change [14]. Approaches to ecosystem-based ad-aptation take into account themultiple social, economic, andcultural cobenefits for local communities as part of an overalladaptation strategy [16]. +is study investigated LEK in-clusive of seasonal ecological knowledge (SEK) on climatetrends and responses to climate change impacts in thecontext of a biosphere reserve.

+e United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) Man and Biosphere Reserves(MAB) are established directly to bring together bio-diversity, cultural diversity, and ecosystem services, thuspromoting ecological security and models for sustainabledevelopment [17]. UNESCO MAB, together with its WorldNetwork of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) functions as aGlobal Observatory for Climate Change Mitigation andAdaptation focused on promoting integrated monitoring,multidisciplinary approaches, and participatory activities,supporting climate change management [18]. +e WNBRstrives to implement the Paris Agreement and United Na-tions (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) byfostering the improvement of human livelihoods and pro-tection of natural and managed ecosystems for sustainabledevelopment [19]. Yashina [20] notes that biosphere reservesplay an important role in developing and implementing

mitigation and adaptation measures as stipulated in theMadrid Climate Change Strategy Action Plan Framework of2008 and the Climate Change Initiative of 2009. Target 24 ofthe Action Plan predicts that biosphere reserves can be usedas learning sites for research into, adaptation to, and mit-igation of climate change impacts [20]. UNESCO [21] callsfor member states to respond to new kinds of conservationchallenge posed by climate change, developing innovativepolicy, tailoring management strategies, and recognizing thevalue of resilient protected area systems that help safeguardthe global environment and human societies from thethreats posed by climate change. UNESCO MAB strategyhighlights the need for local communities to integrate in-digenous knowledge in the fight against climate change.+us, embracing indigenous knowledge in climate changeadaptation is vital to enhance community resilience ofcommunities to climate change [22] in biosphere reservesettings.

Several studies have focused on the impacts and small-scale farmers’ adaptation towards climate change and vari-ability at the agriculture-wildlife interface in Zimbabwe[23, 24]. Nyikahadzoi et al. [25] studied the factors influencingclimate change adaptation among small-scale farmers inHurungwe District, Zimbabwe. Ndebele-Murisa et al. [26]studied the effects of climate change and variability onfisheries-based livelihoods in Kariba, Zimbabwe. However, afew studies have focused on the role of local knowledge inunderstanding climate change trends, impacts, and adaptivestrategies among agroecological-based livelihoods within theMZBR. +is study uses two case studies to explore localecological knowledge (LEK) held by local communities onclimate change trends, impacts, and adaptation in the MiddleZambezi Biosphere Reserve (MZBR), Zimbabwe.

+e growing body of knowledge on local indigenousknowledge about climate change impacts on biophysicalsystems provides novel contributions towards our un-derstanding of local climate change and people’s responses[27–29] in rural communities who are determined to de-velop sustainable environments [6]. Murphy et al. [30]contend that successful adaptation to climate change re-quires understanding processes of social and biophysicalchange and their interactions within socioecological sys-tems. +us, LEK can be used to understand communityadaptive practices which promote resilience to environ-mental changes [31] that have negative effects on locallivelihoods and sustainable development [10]. LEK cantherefore supplement scientific data by providing primaryand comprehensive descriptions of the biophysical andsocioeconomic components of the biosphere landscapes thatare experiencing climate change stresses [20]. In addition,local community traditional daily practices such as weatherforecasting can provide a myriad of benefits includingmaking informed decisions to enhance agricultural foodsecurity [11]. +e objectives of this study were to (i) in-vestigate local community perceptions on trends and causesof climate change, (ii) identify biophysical impacts of climatechange at the local level, and (iii) explore the ecosystem-based adaptation strategies towards climate change on theMZBR, Zimbabwe.

2 Scientifica

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites. +e study was conducted in the ChunduCommunal and Nyamakate Resettlement Area (Table 1)located in the transitional zone of the Middle ZambeziBiosphere Reserve (MZBR), in the northern margins ofMashonaland West Province, Zimbabwe. +e case studycommunities were purposively sampled due to their prox-imity to Mana Pools National Park and Hurungwe SafariArea (Figure 1) as an important factor in their recruitment.+e study area is made up of indigenous people who wereforced to migrate from the Zambezi Valley prior to theestablishment of the adjacent protected areas, namely,Hurungwe Safari Area, Mana Pools National Park, andCharara Safari Area (Figure 1).

+e Nyamakate chiefdom and Chundu Communal Areawas established in the Zambezi valley before and aftercolonization by the white men, respectively [33]. However,the chiefdom was dismantled by the colonial governmentand the occupation of the contemporary NyamakateResettlement was done in the 1980s [32, 33]. NyamakateResettlement and Chundu Communal Areas lie withinagroecological region 3. Chimhowu and Hulme [32] ob-served that most agricultural seasons experience drought inthe area as indicated by the 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84,1986–87, 1991–92, 1994–95, and 1996–97 droughts. +e1991–92 drought was the most severe, and it had profoundeffects on livelihoods [32].

+e MZBR is a habitat to diverse and unique flora andfauna which contributes significantly towards the region’sbiodiversity. Terrestrial and aquatic flora and faunaspecies are found in the adjacent protected areas,i.e., Mana Pools National Park, Hurungwe, Chewore, andCharara safari areas. +e MZBR valley floor area isendowed with diverse wildlife species including elephant(Loxodonta africana), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), blackrhino (Diceros bicornis), painted wild dog (Lycaon pictus),nyala (Tragelaphus angasii), impala, kudu, waterbuck,zebra, hyena, and escarpment sable [35]. Nyamakate andChundu Communal Areas are located within a pre-dominantly Miombo woodland characterized by broad-leaved deciduous Brachystegia, Julbernardia, and Iso-berlinia species.

2.2. Data Collection. +e study used the mixed methodsapproach where a household questionnaire survey, key in-formant interviews, and focus group discussions were usedto collect data on the causes, trends, and indicators of cli-mate change. Prior to the survey, written annual permissionto carry out the research was sought and granted fromHurungwe Rural District Council in 2015 and 2016. +eresearch was approved by the Senate Research Council at theChinhoyi University of Technology (CUT), Zimbabwe. Inaddition, all participants gave verbal informed consent toparticipate in the research.+e study was ethically cleared bythe CUT Ethics Committee.

Household surveys were used to collect quantitative dataon climate trends. +e household questionnaire contained

questions related to (i) demographic profile of the house-hold; (ii) perceptions towards climate change trends, im-pacts; and (iii) coping and adaptation strategies. +equestions comprised both close-ended and open-endedquestions. +e household survey was carried out in thetwo communities between August 2015 and October 2016.+e questionnaire was pre-tested with 16 households fromLima village located adjacent to Charara Safari Area toimprove validity and reliability of the instruments. +equestionnaires were revised after a pilot test to removeambiguities and misunderstandings. Villages which are lo-cated close to the Hurungwe Safari Area were purposivelysampled for the survey. Village registers which were ob-tained from the village heads were used to come up with therepresentative sample for the survey. Every third householdwas systematically sampled on the ground for the survey.Interviews were conducted with the head of the household ortheir spouse if they were not available. +e geographicallocation of each sampled household was captured using aGeographical Position System Garmin Model GPS Map 64(2013) and recorded.

Household questionnaires were administered to 320people, of which 30% (n � 96) were from five villages (India,Golf, Village 20, Murimbika, and Hotel) located in Nya-makate Resettlement Area, while the remaining 70%(n � 224) were from Kabidza and Mayamba villages inChundu Communal area. +e proportion of respondentsfrom each area ward is proportional to the number ofhouseholds in the sampled villages. We selected only re-spondents that were more than 20 years since we assumedthat they were more familiar with the local environment.+eoverall response rate was 100% since research assistantsadministered the questionnaires. Many of the interviewees(85%) were local farmers in the two areas. Socioeconomicand demographic profiles of the respondents are presentedin Table 2.

Twelve (12) key informant interviews were also held withtraditional leaders, ward councilor, and village elders. +estructured key informant guide contained open-endedquestions on traditional climate and weather indicatorsand prediction tools. During 2015 and 2016 survey, tradi-tional leadership accompanied the researcher to their gar-dens, agricultural plots, and forest areas to identify bioticclimate predictors and to learn about their use and theirpurpose in climate prediction and adaptation. +is in-formation together with data from the household survey andfocus group discussions allowed the researcher to compile aninventory of flora and fauna species used in climateprediction.

To ensure triangulation of findings, focus group dis-cussions (FGDs) were held to share, validate, and explore thefindings of the household survey in greater detail [36]. Arandom call of at least two household survey respondents forparticipation in FGDs was made in each village. +e FGDswere composed of between 8 to 15 farmers from mixedgender and/or separate male and female participants.During the FGDS, participants were asked to describe thecauses of climate change and historical climatic events.Participants deliberated among themselves and reached a

Scientifica 3

consensus before the final ranking was recorded. Challengesrelated to domination of the discussion by a few participants[6] were overcome by encouraging all group members to

provide answers. +us, the researcher elicited responsesfrom all FGD participants in the listing and ranking ofstressors [6].

Table 1: Attributes of the study sites within the transition zone of the MZBR.

Attribute Nyamakate Resettlement Area Chundu Communal AreaLand use status Planned Resettlement Area Traditional Communal AreaOwnership Government GovernmentManagement Public PublicKey stakeholders Hurungwe Rural District Council Hurungwe Rural District CouncilConservation initiativesYear established 1980 1958Size (ha) 110145 60753Fauna Domesticated animals Domesticated animals

Flora Dry savannah dominated by Miombowoodland Dry savanna dominated by Miombo woodland

Climate

Marked seasonal annual rainfall 700–800mmhigh means monthly temperatures

approximately 40°C and average minimumtemperatures are around 10°C

Human population High (over 13000 small-scale subsistencefarmers located in designated villages)

High (communal farmers in a typical ruralsetup villages)

Forms of tourism Nonconsumptive tourism Nonconsumptive tourism

Source of livelihoods for localcommunities

Semisubsistence agriculture, Communal AreaManagement Programme for Indigenous

Resources (CAMPFIRE)Subsistence agriculture, CAMPFIRE

Human-wildlife conflicts Human carnivore conflict Human carnivore conflictSource: Chimhowu and Hulme [32]; Mbereko et al. [33]; Madhekeni and Zhou [34].

Figure 1: Location of Nyamakate Resettlement and Chundu Communal Area in the Middle Zambezi Biosphere Reserve (source: authors).

4 Scientifica

2.3. Data Analysis. Data collected through the householdquestionnaire survey were coded by assigning numericalcodes to text and then entered into Statistical Package forSocial Sciences (SPSS software IBM Version 20, Chicago,USA) for analysis. Descriptive statistics (frequencies) wereused to summarize demographic and socioeconomic datafrom the questionnaire response data set. Although thedemographic profile (Table 1) shows distribution of re-spondents from the Resettlement and Communal Area, forfurther analysis, all the data were lumped and treated as asingle data set. +e percentage of all respondents in thehousehold survey (n � 320) that had perceived specificchanges in the climate was calculated. One-way analysis of

variance was used to test whether there is any significantdifference in the mean respondents’ perceptions towardsawareness of changes in climate as well as temperature andrainfall changes. Trends in meteorological data, specificallyrainfall and temperature, were analysed using MicrosoftExcel 2007 [37].

Transcripts from key informant interviews and focusgroup discussions were translated to English and analysedthrough content analysis by identifying recurring themes,concepts, patterns, trends, and key words [38]. Duringqualitative content analysis, LEK on impacts of climatechange was extracted and synthesized. According to Braunand Clarke [39], the deductive thematic analysis is a

Table 2: Socioeconomic and demographic profiles of respondents.

Household characteristics Study sitesTotal %

Nyamakate (n) Chundu (n)

Gender of household head Male 64 171 235 73Female 32 53 85 27

Age of the household head

Below 29 24 20 44 1430–40 34 75 109 3441–50 14 32 46 1451–60 13 26 39 1260+ 11 71 82 26

Marital status of the head

Never married 5 7 12 4Married 73 180 253 79

Divorced/separated 5 7 12 4Widowed 13 28 41 13Cohabiting 0 2 2 1

Household size

1–3 11 32 43 134–6 49 113 162 517–9 25 58 83 2610–12 9 17 26 8

Above 13 2 4 6 2

Period of stay in the MZBR

1–5 20 18 38 125–10 16 24 40 1310–15 15 26 41 1316–20 26 33 59 1821–25 6 22 28 926–30 6 35 41 13

Above 30 7 66 73 23

Education level of household head

None 11 54 65 20Primary 28 85 113 35Secondary 55 82 137 43Tertiary 1 1 2 1

Vocational training 1 2 3 1

Wealth rank categoryPoor 20 80 100 31

Average 68 127 195 61Rich 8 17 25 8

Occupation/job of the household head

Gardening 17 11 28 9Rural farmer 73 199 272 85Farm laborer 1 3 4 1Business 2 3 5 2None 2 0 2 1

Pension 0 2 2 1Professional 0 6 6 2

Family member employed in the wildlife sector Yes 12 15 27 8No 84 209 293 92

Scientifica 5

qualitative data analysis approach which is based on themeswhich are predetermined by the researcher’s theoretical oranalytic interest in the research area and is more explicitlydriven. Data were therefore classified according to localobservations of climate change, impacts of climate changeon the biophysical and socioeconomic systems, and thecoping and adaptation strategies.

3. Results

3.1. Local Community Perceptions on Climate Changeand Variability

3.1.1. Local Awareness of Climate Change and Vulnerability.Findings from key informant interviews indicated a generalawareness among the village elders and other communityleaderships that climate change and variability have been areality in the area. One of the key informants who had stayedin Chundu Communal Area for over five decades (50 years)had this to say:

“I was born in this place in 1965 and my parents were alsoborn here. Yes, I have heard of climate change. I canwitness that the climate is changing judging from theshifting rainfall patterns, it is increasingly becoming er-ratic and local spirit mediums have advised that rainfallwill decrease. We have observed it to be true and even theradio confirms this notion about declining and erraticrainfall.”

Perceptions of key informants are similar to about 58.1%(n � 186) of household questionnaire respondents whoindicated that they were aware of climate change whilst41.9% (n � 134) were not aware. Results from one-wayANOVA show that there were no significant differencesin the mean responses across the entire sample (p≤ 0.000).Focus group discussions further revealed that, in the studyarea, rainfall has been generally decreasing whilst temper-ature has been increasing. Key informants and FGD par-ticipants expressed concern that while the rainfall amounthas been generally decreasing, the seasonal distribution ofthe rainfall was not even throughout the growing seasons.

3.1.2. Patterns and Trends of Climate Change and Variability.Results from the household survey show that the majority(88.1%; n � 282) of the respondents perceived that therainfall amount was generally decreasing whilst tempera-tures were increasing (68.1%; n � 218) (Figure 2). Re-spondents showedmixed perceptions on temperature trendswith 68.1% (n � 218) of the respondents perceiving an in-crease, 8.1% (n � 26) perceiving a decline, and 23.8%(n � 76) perceiving that temperatures had remained thesame (P � 0.02) (Figure 3). +e mean response was 1.40. Onthe other hand, no significant differences were observed onperceptions on rainfall with 4.4% (n � 14) of the respondentsperceiving an increase, 88.4% (n � 282) perceiving a decline,and 6.9% (n � 22) perceiving that temperatures hadremained the same (P � 0.03). +e mean response was 2.83.

Findings from key informants and FGDs indicate thatthere has been a shift in the onset of rain season fromOctober to mid-December whilst the end of rainy season hasshifted from March to April since 2013. Traditional lead-ership noted that the community used to receive early rainlike “bumharutsva” and “gukurahundi” prior to the onset ofthe rain season in November.+emajority of key informantsindicated that the onset of the rain season had shifted andwas now shorter whilst the amount of rainfall has beendeclining. One key informant stated

“Rains are no longer coming in November but mid-December and end in early March. In the past, weused to get rainfall from October/November until aroundMarch/April. Overall, the length of the rain seasons hasalso decreased we only get rainfall for just two months oreven one month. From 1982, we have been receivingnormal rainfall except for 1992, 2001 and 2008 when weexperienced severe drought. From 2008 up to now it hasdrastically decreased.”

A large proportion of the household respondents (94.4%;n � 302) perceived that they had experienced drought as themost frequent extreme event followed by extreme heat(74.7%; n � 239) (Figure 3). Key informants and FGDparticipants also confirmed that there have been changes inrainfall amount and temperature. One key informant stated

“2015/16 summer season has been the worst in terms ofexcessive heat. +ere were 2 days on a weekend that werethe hottest ones we have ever seen. On those same days,our soya bean crops actually dried up within hours fromthe excessive heat. I think that temperatures at that timewere over 40°C. On the other hand, we also experiencedextremely cold periods in winter.”

A large proportion (94%; n � 302) of the householdrespondents had experienced drought. Respondents showedmixed perceptions on the frequency of occurrence ofdrought with 61.6% (n � 197) of the respondents perceivingan increase, 14% (n � 45) perceiving a decline, and 24.4%(n � 78) perceiving that temperatures had remained thesame (P � 0.01). On the other hand, no significant differ-ences were observed on perceptions on excessive heat andexcessive cold (P � 0.07). Key informants and FGD par-ticipants mentioned that the area had experienced droughtsduring the following years: 1981/82; 91/92; 87/88; 2001/02;2007/8; 2013/14. Approximately half of the household re-spondents (56%; n � 178) stated that they had experiencedextreme cold winters since 2008. Trends in the occurrence ofcold winters were also perceived to be on the increase (48/8%; n � 156), and the severity was moderate (43.4%;n � 139). FGD participants also stated that, during the 2012/13 and 2014/2015 rain season, the area had received unusualhailstorms associated with destructive winds. However,findings from the household survey show that floods (3.8%;n � 12) and tropical cyclones (10%; n � 32) are not acommon event in the area. All the key informants and FGDparticipants concurred that generally, weather conditions

6 Scientifica

had become drier and rainfall timing was becoming moreunpredictable.

Key informants were of the opinion that climate changeis caused by industrial pollutants and the abandonment oftraditional culture and practices. Traditional leaders notedthat local chiefs generally no longer perform the traditionalrainmaking ceremonies. It was reported that the chiefs couldnot perform the ceremonies because they do not qualifysince these days people use various deviant acts to becomechiefs. One key informant stated

“Back in the days when industries were few, we had noissues of climate change.+e spirit mediums tell us that interms of lifestyle, people used to be well behaved long agoand there were no cases of incest. Bereaved families didnot store or hang up dead peoples’ clothes (kuturikamatata) like what people are doing nowadays. +e

ancestors are angered by these sins and in turn do notbless the area with rainfall.”

Traditional key informants also lamented that modernreligions were overriding cultural practices most probablydue to diverse cultural backgrounds of people located inNyamakate Resettlement Area. Traditional leadership alsohighlighted that contemporary religious practices particu-larly Christianity of the apostolic sect seem to be in conflictwith traditional values as indicated by invasion of sacredsites such as Hurungwe Mountain where they have estab-lished their shrines. Generally, all key informants stated thatclimate change is caused by excessive deforestation whilstother thought it is due to natural causes. +ose who men-tioned deforestation attributed this to clearance of land andwood harvesting for tobacco farming and curing,respectively.

3.2. Temperature and Rainfall Trends from MeteorologicalData. Analysis of available rainfall data (Figure 4) from theMeteorological Services Department (Kariba Station) for theperiod 1976 to 2011 shows a slight decreasing trends in totalrainfall for the period. +e timing and transitions of seasonshave been highly variable. Periods with very low rainfallinclude 1991/92 and 2001/02 seasons, corresponding tothose years cited by all household survey respondents, keyinformants, and FGD participants.

Mean monthly minimum and maximum temperaturesfor Kariba Station (1976–2007) show a general increase(Figure 5). +e period 1970 to 1981 recorded 30.2°C as theaverage maximum temperature.

+e ten-year period, 1981–1990, shows a significanttemperature increase with a calculated mean averagemaximum temperature for this period as 31.4°C, showing a1.2°C increase from 30.2°C. Ever since 1991 to date, tem-peratures have been increasing, particularly a record of33.1°C for the year 2007. +us, in Kariba, temperatures areincreasing.

3.3. Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on LivelihoodSystems. Household respondents, key informants, and focusgroup discussants were aware of the impacts of climatechange on socioeconomic and biophysical components ofthe environment (Table 3). +e changing climate hasresulted in a general decline in agricultural productivity,including changes in the availability of ecosystem goods andservices. About 43% (n � 139) of the respondents indicatethat they had experienced livestock diseases such as redwater due to climate change. Approximately 59% (n � 189)attributed the decrease of pastures to drought which rankedthird after increase in livestock and population increase.About 8% (26) households had lost at least two cattle(currently valued at approximately US$ 800) due to drought.

A large proportion of household respondents (78%;n � 250) cited declining rainfall (53%; n � 168) as the majorfactor contributing to water shortages whilst another pro-portion (43%; n � 136) also indicated that disappearance ofwetlands (68; n � 218) was also mentioned to be succumbing

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Rainfall Temperature

Num

ber o

f res

pond

ents

Climate parameters

DecreasingNo changeIncreasing

Figure 2: Household respondents’ perceptions of rainfall andtemperature (1980–2015).

0

50

100

150

200

250

Drought Excessive cold Excessive heat

Freq

uenc

y of

hou

seho

lds r

espo

nden

ts

DecliningRegularIncreasing

Extreme events

Figure 3: Household respondents’ experiences of extreme events(1980–2015).

Scientifica 7

to decreasing rainfall. Field observations revealed that somefarmers cultivated in wetlands and valley bottoms, takingadvantage of residual moisture in the soils. Personal fieldobservations revealed boreholes, rivers, streams, and wells asthe key water sources in the area. Key informants indicatedthat there have been substantial changes to the flow regimeof streams such as Chitake, Chewore, Kabidza, Chitake,Mvurameshi, Mvuramachena, Samhofu, and Hodobe. Forinstance, key informants reported that Rukomechi river flowregime had changed from perennial to seasonal since 2015/2016 season. +e study villages used to have several watersources, which would supply water throughout the year suchas natural springs and wetlands, but most of them have driedup.

Key informants and FGD participants identify wild fruitsand forest products, which they used to sustain livelihoodsduring periods of drought. Respondents indicated thatPiliostigma thonningii (Schumach) fruits were being har-vested and pounded into powder to cook porridge, whilstDiospyros mespiliformis (mushuma) and Parinari Curate-llifolia (muchakata) fruits are used as an alternative food

source during drought. In addition, exotic tree species suchas raw mangoes have also been harvested prematurely andcooked for consumption during the 1991/92 and 2007/8drought period. During drought local communities also relyon indigenous shrubs and underground tubers such as airpotato (manyanya) and “mupama”, although even theseroots only do well when there is good rainfall. Dioscoreapraehensilis Benth (mupama) and the air potato Dioscoreabulbifera (manyanya) are woody perennial plants, whichboth belong to the family Dioscoreaceae.+e plants produceedible underground organs (tubers). +e air potato(mupama) is one of the most widely consumed yam species.Mupama tree is also used during drought periods. For ex-ample, respondents mentioned the tree species providedfood relief to most vulnerable and poor households duringthe most severe 1991/2 and 2007/8 drought period. Re-spondents stated that the yam plant produces potato likeroots are edible. Unlike the ordinary potato and sweet potatotubers, the air potato tubers have to be thoroughly boiled toremove the bitter taste before consumption. Other key in-formants reported that if the tubers are underprepared, theirconsumption could lead to severe stomach ailments andeventually death.

Key informants reported that Rhynchosia venulosa(mukoyo) is as one of the popular drought relief plantspecies among the local community members. Key in-formants and FGD participants stated that traditional beer-brewing experts use the roots of the legume to brew beer,which can be sold locally or taken to the border town ofChirundu for sale. Key informants suggested that com-mercialization of the by-product from the legume is im-portant in contributing towards household income duringdrought periods. +e shrub has been cited as one of theunderutilised legumes which have tremendous potential forcommercial exploitation in the area. Participants reportedthat they even illegally harvest the plant in the adjacentprotected area since the species is already disappearing innearby community forests.

A few respondents cited bee farming as one of the keycoping strategies in response to changing climatic short-ages. +e beehives are made from mupfuti tree timber.Upon completion, the beehives are placed in the mupondoor mutsabvi tree because it has flowers, which easily attractthe bees towards the hives. Local community memberspractice highlighted that bee farming requires patience anddedication; hence, very few people use it as a copingstrategy. +e next section presents an analysis of factorswhich influence the choice of coping strategies in the studyarea.

4. Discussion

4.1. Local Community Perceptions on Trends and Causes ofClimateChange. Findings from this study indicate that localcommunities perceive that rainfall is decreasing whilsttemperatures are increasing. Findings are in line with IPCC[40] predictions that temperatures across different scales areset to increase whilst rainfall in southern Africa is set todecrease. Results from this study show that scientific rainfall

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Mea

n m

onth

ly ra

infa

ll (m

m)

Years

Rainfall (mm)10 per. mov. avg. (rainfall (mm))

Figure 4: Mean monthly rainfall for Kariba (1967–2007) (source:Meteorological Services Department (MSD) Kariba Station).

y = 0.0443x + 30.066R2 = 0.5233

29

29.5

30

30.5

31

31.5

32

32.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Mea

n m

onth

ly m

axim

um te

mpe

ratu

re (°

C)

Figure 5: Mean monthly temperature for Kariba (1967–2007)(source: Meteorological Services Department (MSD) KaribaStation).

8 Scientifica

Table 3: Local community perceptions of climate change impacts on livelihood systems.

Perceived climate trend Impacts on livelihood system Coping and adaptation strategyAgricultural activities

Declining and erratic rainfall shifting rainseason

Inadequate moisture for plants production(BI)

Decrease in crop productivity, e.g., maize(SE)

Changes in crops/varietiesShort and unpredictable planting season (SE)

Increased prevalence of new pests anddiseases (BI/SE)

Cultivate in wetlands and low-lying areasChange crop variety from long season to

short season (A)Use stored grain as seed reduced the overall

area under cultivation

Extreme temperatures (heat waves and verycold winters)

Wilting of maize and tobacco has mostlybeen affected by excessive heat (BI/SE)

Water conservation techniques such asconservation agriculture and mulching

Persistent droughts Household food shortages due to poorharvest/low agricultural output (SE)

Harvest wild fruits, e.g., muchekecha, andwild legumes such as Dioscorea praehensilis

Benth (mupama), and the air potato,Dioscorea bulbifera (manyanya), andRhynchosia venulosa (mukoyo) during

drought periodsHarvest wild animals, e.g., rabbits, warthogs,

and mice, and community/nutritionalgardens

Off-farm jobs in nearby commercial farmsCooking raw bananas and mangoes

Gold panning,Selling livestock.

Barter trading, for example, exchanging 2gallons maize with a goat

Reduced household income (SE)

Rearing of domestic guinea fowls (Numidameleagris f. domestica) and rock hyrax(Procavia capensis) for sale; bee-keeping

informal trading; food for work; weaving andhand crafting; Off-farm activities, e.g., seekemployment in nearby farms, and migrant

labor in Zambia

Reduced rainfall and excessive heat drought

Deterioration on quantity and quality oflivestock grazing areas (BI/SE)

Reduced livestock, e.g., cattle and goats, andreproductive rate and capacity has been

affected (SE)Increase in roadrunner mortalities and

reduced reproduction (SE)Increase in cases of climate-induced disease

outbreaks (SE)Shortage of water for livestock (BI); livestockmortality (cattle, goats, and sheep); livestockdiseases (e.g., red water in sheep, goats, andcattle), and deteriorating health condition

(all domestic animals) (SE/BI)

Livestock graze within wetlands and adjacentprotected area

Store maize crop residue for cattle feedReduce livestock numbers

Water resources

Reduced rainfall and high temperatures

Reduction in water sources due to drying upof water sources boreholes; domestic wellsdrying up before the end of the next rainy

season (BI/SE)Change in river flow from perennial toseasonal (BI); disease outbreaks such asheadache, malaria, and diarrhoea (SE)

Lack of water for setting up tobacco seedbeds (BI/SE)

Wetlands drying up

Dig deep wells along river beds and onwetlands

Women travel long distances to fetch waterSeveral households (e.g., up to 44) share

same borehole

Scientifica 9

data which show interannual variations and a general de-cline in rainfall for over the past 30 years corroborate withthe people’s perception of climate changes. Farmers’ per-ceptions of climate change in the study area are in line withempirical data and other studies on farmers perceptionsinhabitingmarginal areas in Zimbabwe [23, 41, 42]. Findingsare also similar to other studies in Zimbabwe such as GuruveDistrict where Gwenzi et al. [43] and Hwedza and Makoni[44] have reported unpredictable rainfall, declining rainfall,and increasing temperatures as some of the indicators ofclimate change. Local ecological knowledge on climatepatterns and impacts has been documented in other studiesin different parts of Africa [45–48]. Using IKS, Nkomwaet al. [22] reported that farmers in Malawi observed delayedand unpredictable onset of rainfall, declining rainfall trends,warming temperatures, and increased frequency of dry spellsas some of the key indicators of a changing climate.However, there are variations with respect to observedextreme events. In this study, respondents cited frequentdroughts and heat waves as the common extreme events.+ese findings are similar to IPCC [40] report, which in-dicated that persistent droughts and extreme temperaturesare some of the indicators of a changing climate. Whilst

other studies have observed extreme events such as cyclonesand floods [49–51], in this study, farmers did not identifysuch events. In Zimbabwe, two cyclones Elline (experiencedin 2000) and Japhet (experienced in 2003) have mainlyaffected theManicaland andMasvingo provinces [51], whichthe study respondents have not experienced. According tothe [52] the major flood-prone areas in Zimbabwe are se-lected parts of the southern lowveld and the lower Zambezivalley, that is Muzarabani, Middle Sabi, Tsholotsho, Mali-pati, Chikwalakwala, and Tuli-Shashe.

In this study, farmers attribute climate change to bothanthropogenic and spiritual causes. +is is in line withfindings by [53] who noticed that farmers in Ghana per-ceived that disasters such as prolonged droughts are inflictedby spiritual factors such as the gods. Our findings alsocorrespond with the IPCC [40] report that combinations ofanthropogenic and natural forces are the major cases ofclimatic changes.

4.2. Local Ecological Knowledge on the Impacts of ClimateChange. +is study found that community members agreedthat extreme events related to climate change such as

Table 3: Continued.

Perceived climate trend Impacts on livelihood system Coping and adaptation strategyForest resources

Reduce rainfall

Changes in tree phenology (both domesticand exotic tree species), e.g., mazhanje and

mango (BI)Prolonged leaf senescence time in leaf fall fordeciduous trees from August to October, treeleaves would be green but now the leaveshave actually fallen off when they used to falloff only in August, e.g., mupfuti, munondo,mutsonzowa, mukonono, mutowa (BI/SE)Most indigenous and exotic fruit trees

including fruit trees are no longer producingfruit disappearance of reduced fruit

production, e.g., Diospyros mespiliformis andmuhacha (BE/SE)

Planting of indigenous and exotic treespecies

Extreme temperatures (heat waves andexcessive cold)

Premature drying up of fruits like nhunguru(BI) Planting indigenous and exotic trees

Soil resources

Reduced rainfall and excessive temperatures Soil carbon stocks have been disturbed (BI)Change in soil quality over time (BI)

Conserve our soils through the use of“madhunduru”; apply fertilizers

Wildlife resources

Drought (2002–2008)

Habitat encroachment, e.g., humanexpansion of cultivation into buffer zone (BI)Livestock depredation during the prolongeddry season; lions mostly follow after donkeysand cows; hyenas target goats wild animals;

lions and hyenas attack livestock (BI)Crop destruction (buffaloes and elands

destroy tobacco and eat maize in the fieldsduring March, April, and May

Bush pigs and baboons create a menaceduring the planting and harvesting season

from December to May (SE)

Illegal hunting and harvesting

Key: Socioeconomic impact (SE); biophysical Impact (BI).

10 Scientifica

prolonged dry periods and excessive temperatures haveaffected agricultural activities and the biophysical envi-ronment. Nyikahadzoi et al. [25] note that climate change isexpected to continue to pose a serious threat to agriculture insouthern Africa as annual rainfall amounts are expected todecline and temperatures are expected to increase. Climatechange has led to highly variable yields in arable agriculture(both rain-fed and irrigated) in African countries [54].Findings in this study are in line with the IPCC [40] whichstates that climate change impacts affect both natural andhuman systems. Respondents indicated that climate changehas affected seasonal rainfall patterns by reducing the lengthof the rainy periods as well as the amount of rain withconsequences on crop and livestock production. Similarobservations by Chikozho [51] are that low and erraticrainfall is leading to low and unpredictable levels of cropproduction in the semidry agroecological zones of Zim-babwe. Study findings revealed that some farmers resorted tostored grain for seed but did not indicate any loss of seedvariety impacts associated with climate change. +is con-trasts with findings byMburu Gathuru and Kaguna [55] whorevealed that, in Kenya, climate change, mainly reducedrainfall levels, has led to the disappearance of some of theindigenous seed varieties as continued failure of crops isaffecting the capacity for production of good seeds. In thisstudy, farmers indicated that the planting season has beenshortened due to shifting in the timing of the onset of therain season. Findings in this study are in line with MburuGathuru and Kaguna [55] who observed that, in Kenya,climate change has caused disruption of the planting cal-endar such that it has become increasingly difficult foryouthful farmers to predict seasonal regimes.

Findings on the negative impacts of climate change onpastures and livestock health concur with those by Hoppinget al. [56] who reported that pastoralists in the Tibetanrangelands, China, have the same opinion that changingclimate is driving undesirable trends in grassland andlivestock health. Rose et al. [57] also noted cases of decline inpastures due to low and erratic rainfall. Other authors havealso noted that livestock production faces the problem ofpoor and variable rangeland productivity and desertificationprocesses [24, 58, 59]. Generally, reduction in fresh waterresources affects natural resource and climate-dependentsectors such as forestry, agriculture, water, and fisheries[60]. Findings from this study indicate that local commu-nities use LEK to detect changes in water resources due toclimate change and variability. Respondents indicated thatfrequent extreme events such as drought and increasingtemperatures affect soil moisture and surface water avail-ability for both domestic use and agriculture. +is is in linewith United Nations Framework on Climate Change [61]assertion that Africa faces challenges related to wateravailability and spatial variations in the location and need forwater resources. Observations from this study are alsosimilar to those by Taylor et al. [62] who noticed that morefrequent and intense climate extremes such as droughts andfloods increase variability in soil moisture and surface water.Observations in this study related to drying up of rivers andpoor water quality in surface and groundwater systems

coincide with findings by Urama and Ozor [63] who re-ported that impacts on water resources act in conjunctionwith other factors to affect ecosystem health and socio-economic well-being of human communities. For example,Mburu Gathuru and Kaguna [55] also noticed that, inKenya, climate change interacts with anthropogenic activ-ities along rivers to contribute to reduction of river watervolume over time and weakening of critical ecosystems likeforest watersheds.

Farmers at the agriculture wildlife interface notice im-pacts of climate change on wildlife resource abundance suchas disappearance of wetlands, habitat changes, and changesin the phenology of indigenous tree species. +ese obser-vations are in line with Dube and Phiri [64] who reportedthat climate change is affecting biodiversity in Zimbabwe asindicated by the disappearance of natural habitats, flora, andfauna. In Tanzania, Paavola [65] also noticed that forests,wildlife, and wetlands are being impacted by climate change.Farmers also reported that although wildlife resources suchas fruits are consumed to avert food shortages duringdrought, their abundance has declined due to climaticchanges. Results from this study agree with those by Rurindaet al. [44], who reported that the availability of wild fruitsand social safety nets was affected directly and indirectly byextreme temperatures and increased rainfall variability,impacting on the livelihoods of resource-constrainedfarmers. Similar observations were also seen in [66] whonoticed that farmers in Makonde district, Zimbabwe, per-ceived changes in ecosystem productivity, goods, and ser-vices as a result of climate-induced factors. Nhemachenaet al. [41] also indicated that the phenology of indigenousfruit trees and invertebrate species was under threat fromclimate-induced changes on water availability and wetlands.However, in this study, respondents did not identify anyimpacts associated with invertebrate species.

+e recruitment of plants has been constrained by lowrainfall and temperature leading to low productivity [67].Low productivity of primary producers (plants) had severecascading effects on both domestic and wildlife species alongthe food chain. Climate change has led to creation of strongtensions between humans and wildlife species due toshortage of resources (especially food and water). Occur-rence of habitat patches and invasive species (which areinedible to animals) led to animals exceeding their home-ranges and encroaching human habitats, thereby causingdamage to crops and property paving a way to human-wildlife conflict. Climate change has the potential to altermigratory routes (and timings) of species that use bothseasonal wetlands (migratory birds) and track seasonalchanges in vegetation (herbivores) [68]. +is increaseconflicts between people and large mammals such as ele-phants, particularly in areas where rainfall is low. Change[69] states that wildlife-farming conflict was potentiallyexacerbated by climate change, in particular, drought, whichencourages wildlife to forage on farmlands.

In this study, respondents also noted that climatic pa-rameters interact with other nonclimatic factors such asillegal harvesting and pressure from human populationincrease also influence the abundance of wildlife resources.

Scientifica 11

For instance, trees belonging to the dominant family withinthe Miombo region are threatened by other nonclimaticfactors such as deforestation. Similar observations have beenmade in Mozambique where trees associated with Miombowoodland utilised for traditional purposes are declining dueto overexploitation and destructive collection [70]. Mubayaet al. [71] suggest that although climatic factors are critical indetermining production in agroecosystems, multiplestressors interact to influence the abundance and diversity ofnatural resources.

4.3. Coping and Adaptation Strategies. Findings from thisstudy revealed that local communities use LEK on wildliferesources, water conservation, indigenous plant food sources,and alternative income generation as way of adapting andcoping with changing rainfall patterns, extreme temperatures,and droughts. Local communities use water harvesting suchas digging wells, which collect water within wetlands duringthe rainy season, as one of the key strategies of coping withwater shortages. +e water is then used for supplementaryirrigation of vegetables and crops during the dry season.Similar observations have been made by Van Campenhoutet al. [72] that, in the dry season, farmers use the waterconserved in the wells and basins for irrigation. Home gar-dens are widely done in southern Africa especially Zimbabwe,Mozambique, Botswana, and South Africa where there isgrowing of food crops like maize, rice, vegetable, and fruits forbarter trading and income generation [72]. For example, inSouth Africa, indigenous people grow cash crops like vege-tables, tomatoes, and maize in home gardens to increasehousehold income [73].

+is study established that illegal harvesting of wildlifeand harvesting and consumption of wild fruits and legumescan alleviate food shortages during drought. Similar findingshave been observed by [74, 75] who noted that off-farmincome derived from exploitation of wildlife resources iscritical to livelihoods and overall adaptive capacity. Incoping with risk due to excessive or low rainfall, drought,and crop failure, some traditional people in Ghana alsosupplement their food by hunting, fishing, and gatheringwild food plants [76]. Findings from this study on the use ofedible tubers from family Dioscoreaceae are similar tofindings elsewhere in Africa. Similar sentiments have beenexpressed byMortimore andManvell [77] who reported thatsmall holder farmers in northern Nigeria making use ofbiodiversity in cultivated crops and wild plants as one of theadaptation strategies. For example, Bruschi et al. [70] foundthat some plant species like Dioscorea cochleari apiculataand Dioscorea dumetorum have been collected from aMiombo woodland and eaten as a means of averting foodshortages during drought periods in a rural community ofMuda-Serraçã, central Mozambique. Similarly, in this study,the same species provide alternative food during droughtperiods. In addition, both studies acknowledge that uti-lisation of the tubers requires one to be thoroughlyacquainted with the skills and techniques for making someof the poisonous wild plants edible. Apart from southernAfrica, the edible legumes are widely known as famine foods

in East Africa and have also been reported as cultivated insome parts of West Africa [78]. Key informants also em-phasized that Dioscorea cochleari apiculata and D. dume-torum may be eaten only after they have undergoneappropriate preparation. Basically, the preparation pro-cedure for the tubers involve the following: peeling the tuber,cutting it into thin slices, dry and wash several hours in ariver, always changing the place, and then boil thoroughlyfor a prolonged period of time till they are cooked. Failure todo this may cause vomiting and even death as revealed byobservations from East Africa [79].

In this study, few individuals indicated that they resort toproduction of handcrafts for sale as a strategy to increasehousehold income. Mogotsi et al. [80] concurs that localcommunities have engaged in different living strategies likeproducing crafts for selling for income generation in order toreduce poverty and starvation during drought periods. Forexample, in Zimbabwe and South Africa, they use murara(Hyphanate petersiana) leaves for basket weaving andproduction of wine from the sap [24, 81]. In Zimbabwe,njemani production has become a source of living for manypeople in Sengwe area and some of people no longer getinvolved in farming [82]. Similarly, in this study, somefarmers indicated that they used local plant resources toweave mats, curve wood crafts, and brew beer for selling toboost household income but still engage in farming.However, unlike other communities who use grass plantslike Hyphanate petersiana to brew local beer [82], in thisstudy, they used legume Rhynchosia venulosa to brew beer.

5. Conclusion

Local communities within the MZBR perceive climaticchanges especially changing rainfall and temperature. Inaddition, they perceive cultural and anthropogenic factorssuch as deforestation as some of the causes of climaticchange. +e community uses ethnobotanical and ethno-zoological knowledge to detect weather changes. Localcommunities in biosphere reserves have noticed impacts ofclimate change on the socioeconomic and biophysicallivelihood assets. Consequently, they have developed severallivelihood coping and adaptation strategies to enhance thefood security of their families in response to the changingclimatic conditions. Land tenure category influences thechoice of drought-related coping strategies for local com-munities in the MZBR.

Based on the findings, local ecological knowledge canprovide information on the changing climate especially inunder-researched areas such as theMZBR. Such informationcan complement scientific data to inform policy on bestpractices to build adaptive capacity of rural communitieswithin biosphere reserves in semiarid tropical savanna. LEK,in particular, traditional phenological knowledge (TPK), canbe adopted to complement scientific forecasts especiallyunder situations where the local community recognizes thatclimate is changing. Findings from this study indicate thatlocal ecological knowledge can provide information onhousehold livelihood strategies under a changing climateespecially in under-researched areas such as theMZBR. Such

12 Scientifica

information can compliment scientific data to inform policyon best practices to build adaptive capacity of rural com-munities within biosphere reserves in semi-arid tropicalsavanna. Integrating local ecological knowledge into climatechange adaptation and biodiversity conservation is possibleif the knowledge holders are directly engaged as activeparticipants in these efforts. Results from this study highlightthe need for harnessing local knowledge to enhance com-munity resilience and promote ecosystem-based adaptationstrategies in the face of a changing climate.

Data Availability

Data can be made available subject to terms and conditionsrelated to open-access publication.

Disclosure

+e contents of this paper are the sole responsibility of theauthors and can under no circumstances be regarded asreflecting the position of the European Union.

Conflicts of Interest

+e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

+e authors would like to acknowledge joint funding from theDepartment for International Development (DfID) under the2015 Climate Impact Research Capacity and LeadershipEnhancement (CIRCLE) programme, the European Unionunder the DREAM project, and Chinhoyi University ofTechnology (Grant PG3987). Special thanks go to the Instituteof Cooperate Citizenship, Exxaro Chair in Business andClimate Change University of South Africa, South Africa, forhosting OLK during the CIRCLE fellowship.

References

[1] H. Reid, “Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation:learning from community-based natural resource manage-ment,” Climate and Development, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 4–9, 2016.

[2] M. Macherera and M. J. Chimbari, “Developing acommunity-centred malaria early warning system based onindigenous knowledge: Gwanda District, Zimbabwe,” Jamba:Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, 2016.

[3] V. Savo, D. Lepofsky, J. P. Benner, K. E. Kohfeld, J. Bailey, andK. Lertzman, “Observations of climate change amongsubsistence-oriented communities around the world,” NatureClimate Change, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 462–473, 2016.

[4] W. N. Adger, J. Barnett, K. Brown, N. Marshall, andK. O’brien, “Cultural dimensions of climate change impactsand adaptation,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 3, no. 2,pp. 112–117, 2013.

[5] United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals, UnitedNations, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2015, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu�1300.

[6] S. N. A. Codjoe, G. Owusu, and V. Burkett, “Perception,experience, and indigenous knowledge of climate change andvariability: the case of Accra, a sub-Saharan African city,”

Regional Environmental Change, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 369–383,2014.

[7] J. Mapara, “Binarism as a recipe for lukewarm research intoindigenous knowledge systems in Zimbabwe,” inHandbook ofResearch on ?eoretical Perspectives on Indigenous KnowledgeSystems in Developing Countries, P. Ngulube, Ed., IGI GlobalPublishers, Hershey, PA, USA, 2017.

[8] J. Mapara, “Indigenous knowledge systems in Zimbabwe:Juxtaposing postcolonial theory,” Journal of Pan AfricanStudies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 139–155, 2009.

[9] M. Gadgil, F. Berkes, and C. Folke, “Indigenous knowledge forbiodiversity conservation,” AMBIO, vol. 22, pp. 151–156, 1993.

[10] D. J. Nakashima, K. Galloway McLean, H. D. +ulstrup,A. Ramos Castillo, and J. T. Rubis, Weathering Uncertainty:Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment andAdaptation, UNESCO, and Darwin, UNU, Paris, France, 2012.

[11] C. Armatas, T. Venn, B. McBride, A. Watson, and S. Carver,“Opportunities to utilize traditional phenological knowledgeto support adaptive management of social-ecological systemsvulnerable to changes in climate and fire regimes,” Ecologyand Society, vol. 21, no. 1, 2016.

[12] C. Cook, G. Wardell-Johnson, R. Carter, and M. Hockings,“How accurate is the local ecological knowledge of protectedarea practitioners?,” Ecology and Society, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 32,2014.

[13] D. McGregor, “Indigenous knowledge in sustainable forestmanagement: community-based approaches achieve greatersuccess,”?e forestry chronicle, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 833–836, 2002.

[14] CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), Convention onBiological Diversity, CBD, Montreal, Canada, 2009, https://www.cbd.int.

[15] H. Reid, M. Alam, R. Berger, T. Cannon, S. Huq, andA. Milligan, “Community-based adaptation to climatechange: an overview,” Participatory Learning and Action,vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 11–33, 2009.

[16] N. Doswald and M. Osti, Ecosystem-Based Approaches toAdaptation and Mitigation: Good Practice Examples andLessons Learned in Europe, BfN, Federal Agency for NatureConservation, Bonn, Germany, 2011.

[17] P. Bridgewater and D. Babin, “UNESCO–MAB BiosphereReserves already deal with ecosystem services and sustainabledevelopment,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences, vol. 114, no. 22, p. E4318, 2017.

[18] UNESCO, “Learning to mitigate and adapt to climate change :UNESCO and climate change education,” in Proceedings ofUNESCO International Seminar on Climate ChangeEducation, Paris, France, July 2009.

[19] UNESCO, A New Roadmap for the Man and the Biosphere(MAB) Programme and its World Network of Biosphere Re-serves, United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization, Paris, France, 2017.

[20] T. Yashina, “Adaptation to climate change in the biospherereserves: a case study of Katunskiy biosphere reserve, Russia,”eco.mont (Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research),vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 59–62, 2011.

[21] UNESCO, Biosphere Reserves, Real-Life Observatories of Cli-mate Change—Draft UNESCO MAB Report Based on a 2015Survey, UNESCO, Paris, France, 2015.

[22] E. C. Nkomwa, M. K. Joshua, C. Ngongondo, M. Monjerezi,and F. Chipungu, “Assessing indigenous knowledge systemsand climate change adaptation strategies in agriculture: a casestudy of Chagaka Village, Chikhwawa, Southern Malawi,”Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, vol. 67–69,pp. 164–172, 2014.

Scientifica 13

[23] O. Jiri, P. L. Mafongoya, C. Mubaya, and O. Mafongoya,“Seasonal climate prediction and adaptation using indigenousknowledge systems in agriculture systems in Southern Africa: areview,” Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 8, no. 5, p.156, 2016.

[24] C. Murungweni, M. T. van Wijk, K. E. Giller, J. A. Andersson,and E. M. A. Smaling, “Adaptive livelihood strategies employedby farmers to close the food gap in semi-arid south easternZimbabwe,” Food Security, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 313–326, 2014.

[25] K. Nyikahadzoi, O. Mombo, B. Zamasiya, and P. Warinda,“Enhancing household food security under changing climaticconditions: a case study of Gokwe North and HurungweDistricts in Zimbabwe,” Journal of Agricultural & Food In-formation, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 96–109, 2017.

[26] M. R. Ndebele-Murisa, E. Mashonjowa, and T. Hill, “+eimplications of a changing climate on the Kapenta fish stocksof Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe,” Transactions of the Royal Societyof South Africa, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 105–119, 2011.

[27] L. Lebel, “Local knowledge and adaptation to climate changein natural resource-based societies of the Asia-Pacific,”Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1057–1076, 2013.

[28] A. Nyong, F. Adesina, and B. Osman Elasha, “+e value ofindigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation andadaptation strategies in the African Sahel,” Mitigation andAdaptation strategies for global Change, vol. 12, no. 5,pp. 787–797, 2007.

[29] V. Reyes-Garcıa, A. Fernandez-Llamazares, M. Gueze et al.,“Local indicators of climate change: the potential contributionof local knowledge to climate research,” Wiley In-terdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 7, no. 1,pp. 109–124, 2016.

[30] C. Murphy, M. Tembo, A. Phiri, O. Yerokun, andB. Grummell, “Adapting to climate change in shifting land-scapes of belief,” Climatic change, vol. 134, no. 1-2,pp. 101–114, 2016.

[31] H. C. Nash, M. H. G. Wong, and S. T. Turvey, “Using localecological knowledge to determine status and threats of theCritically Endangered Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla)in Hainan, China,” Biological Conservation, vol. 196,pp. 189–195, 2016.

[32] A. Chimhowu and D. Hulme, “Livelihood dynamics inplanned and spontaneous resettlement in Zimbabwe: con-verging and vulnerable,” World Development, vol. 34, no. 4,pp. 728–750, 2006.

[33] A. Mbereko, D. Scott, and O. L. Kupika, “First generation landreform in Zimbabwe: historical and institutional dynamicsinforming household’s vulnerability in the NyamakateResettlement community,” Journal of Sustainable Develop-ment in Africa, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 21–40, 2015.

[34] A. Madhekeni and G. Zhou, “Legal and institutional frame-work: the “achilles heel” of local authorities and Raison D’etreof ministerial intervention in Zimbabwe,” Journal of PublicAdministration and Governance, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 19–32, 2012.

[35] Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority(ZPWMA), Mana Pools National Park General ManagementPlan part 2 : Background, Zimbabwe Parks and WildlifeManagement Authority (ZPWMA), Harare, Zimbabwe, 2009.

[36] G. Meldrum, D. Mijatovic, W. Rojas et al., “Climate changeand crop diversity: farmers’ perceptions and adaptation on theBolivian Altiplano,” Environment, Development and Sus-tainability, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 703–730, 2017.

[37] R. Y. M. Kangalawe, C. G. Mung’ong’o, A. G. Mwakaje,E. Kalumanga, and P. Z. Yanda, “Climate change and vari-ability impacts on agricultural production and livelihood

systems in Western Tanzania,” Climate and Development,vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 202–216, 2017.

[38] N. R. Ubisi, P. L. Mafongoya, U. Kolanisi, and O. Jiri,“Smallholder farmer’s perceived effects of climate change oncrop production and household livelihoods in rural Limpopoprovince, South Africa,” Change and Adaptation in Socio-Ecological Systems, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2017.

[39] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psy-chology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2,pp. 77–101, 2006.

[40] IPCC, Livelihoods and Poverty. Climate Change 2014: Impacts,Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and SectoralAspects. Contribution of working Group II to the Fifth As-sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.

[41] C. Nhemachena, R. Mano, V. Muwanigwa, and S. Mudombi,“Perceptions on climate change and its impact on livelihoodsin Hwange district, Zimbabwe,” Jamba: Journal of DisasterRisk Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2014.

[42] G. Nyamadzawo, M. Wuta, J. Nyamangara, P. Nyamugafata,and N. Chirinda, “Optimizing dambo (seasonal wetland)cultivation for climate change adaptation and sustainable cropproduction in the smallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe,”International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 13,no. 1, pp. 23–39, 2015.

[43] J. Gwenzi, E. Mashonjowa, P. L. Mafongoya, D. T. Rwasoka,and K. Stigter, “+e use of indigenous knowledge systems forshort and long range rainfall prediction and farmers’ per-ceptions of science-based seasonal forecasts in Zimbabwe,”International Journal of Climate Change Strategies andManagement, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 440–462, 2016.

[44] J. Rurinda, P. Mapfumo, M. T. van Wijk et al., “Sources ofvulnerability to a variable and changing climate amongsmallholder households in Zimbabwe: a participatory anal-ysis,” Climate Risk Management, vol. 3, pp. 65–78, 2014.

[45] T. Dube, P. Moyo, S. Ndlovu, and K. Phiri, “Towards aframework for the integration of traditional ecologicalknowledge and meteorological science in seasonal climateforecasting: the case of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe,”Journal of Human Ecology, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 49–58, 2016.

[46] H. O. Kaya, “Cultural values and african indigenousknowledge systems in climate change adaptation,” Journal ofSocial Sciences, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 130–136, 2016.

[47] F. Kemausuor, “Farmers’ perception of climate change in theEjura-Sekyedumase district of Ghana,” ARPN Journal of Ag-ricultural and Biological Science, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 26–37, 2011.

[48] C. K. Songok, E. C. Kipkorir, and E. M. Mugalavai, “In-tegration of indigenous knowledge systems into climatechange adaptation and enhancing food security in Nandi andKeiyo districts, Kenya,” in Experiences of Climate ChangeAdaptation in Africa, pp. 69–95, 2011.

[49] F. A. Armah, D. O. Yawson, G. T. Yengoh, J. O. Odoi, andE. K. A. Afrifa, “Impact of floods on livelihoods and vul-nerability of natural resource dependent communities inNorthern Ghana,” Water, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 120–139, 2010.

[50] G. B. Bosongo, J. N. Longo, J. Goldin, and V. L. Muamba,“Socioeconomic impacts of floods and droughts in the middleZambezi river basin: case of Kanyemba,” International Journalof Climate Change Strategies and Management, vol. 6, no. 2,pp. 131–144, 2014.

[51] C. Chikozho, “Applied social research and action priorities foradaptation to climate change and rainfall variability in therainfed agricultural sector of Zimbabwe,” Physics and

14 Scientifica

Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, vol. 35, no. 13-14,pp. 780–790, 2010.

[52] Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Manage-ment, First Draft: Zimbabwe National Climate ChangeResponse Strategy, Ministry of Environment and NaturalResources Management, Zimbabwe, South Africa, 2013.

[53] E. A. Asante, S. Ababio, and K. B. Boadu, “+e use of in-digenous cultural practices by the ashantis for the conser-vation of forests in Ghana,” SAGE Open, vol. 7, no. 1, 2017.

[54] P. J. M. Cooper, J. Dimes, K. P. C. Rao, B. Shapiro, B. Shiferaw,and S. Twomlow, “Coping better with current climatic variabilityin the rain-fed farming systems of sub-SaharanAfrica: an essentialfirst step in adapting to future climate change?,” Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 126, no. 1-2, pp. 24–35, 2008.

[55] A. Mburu Gathuru and S. Kaguna, “Community dialogue onILK relevant for Water, relevant for food and protection in+araka, Kenya,” in Knowing our Lands and Resources: In-digenous and Local Knowledge of Biodiversity and EcosystemServices in Africa. Knowledges of Nature 8, M. Roue,N. Cesard, Y. C. Adou Yao, and A. Oteng-Yeboah, Eds.,pp. 30–40, UNESCO, Paris, France, 2017.

[56] K. A. Hopping, C. Yangzong, and J. A. Klein, “Localknowledge production , transmission , and the importance ofvillage leaders in a network of Tibetan pastoralists coping withenvironmental,” Ecology and Society, vol. 21, no. 1, 2016.

[57] H. Rose, B. Hoar, S. J. Kutz, and E. R. Morgan, “Exploitingparallels between livestock and wildlife: predicting the impactof climate change on gastrointestinal nematodes in rumi-nants,” International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites andWildlife, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 209–219, 2014.

[58] P. K. +ornton, J. Van de Steeg, A. Notenbaert, andM. Herrero, “+e impacts of climate change on livestock andlivestock systems in developing countries: a review of what weknow and what we need to know,” Agricultural Systems,vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 113–127, 2009.

[59] D. Yayeh and W. Leal, “Farmers perceptions of climatevariability and its adverse impacts on crop and livestockproduction in Ethiopia,” Journal of Arid Environments,vol. 140, pp. 20–28, 2017.

[60] A. K.Misra, “Climate change and challenges of water and foodsecurity,” International Journal of Sustainable Built Envi-ronment, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 153–165, 2014.

[61] UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange: Handbook, Climate Change Secretariat, Bonn, Ger-many, 2006.

[62] R. G. Taylor, B. Scanlon, P. Doll et al., “Ground water andclimate change,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 3, no. 4,pp. 322–329, 2012.

[63] K. C. Urama and N. Ozor, Impacts of Climate Change onWater Resources in Africa : the Role of Adaptation, ScientificResearch Publishing, Wuhan, China, 2010.

[64] T. Dube and K. Phiri, “Rural livelihoods under stress: theimpact of climate change on livelihoods in south westernZimbabwe,” American International Journal of ContemporaryResearch, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 11–25, 2013.

[65] J. Paavola, “Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to cli-mate change in Morogoro, Tanzania,” Environmental Science& Policy, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 642–654, 2008.

[66] I. Sango and G. Nhamo, “Climate change trends and envi-ronmental impacts in the Makonde Communal lands, Zim-babwe,” South African Journal of Science, vol. 111, no. 7-8,2015.

[67] T. G. Jagtap and V. L. Nagle, “Response and adaptability ofmangrove habitats from the Indian subcontinent to changing

climate,” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment,vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 328–334, 2007.

[68] B. Orlove, C. Roncoli, M. Kabugo, and A. Majugu, “In-digenous climate knowledge in southern Uganda: the multiplecomponents of a dynamic regional system,” Climatic Change,vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 243–265, 2010.

[69] IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulner-ability, Contribution ofWorking Group II to the?irdAssessmentReport, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.

[70] P. Bruschi, M. Mancini, E. Mattioli, M. Morganti, andM. Signorini, “Traditional uses of plants in a rural communityof Mozambique and possible links with Miombo degradationand harvesting sustainability,” Journal of Ethnobiology andEthnomedicine, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 59, 2014.

[71] C. P. Mubaya, J. Njuki, E. P. Mutsvangwa, F. T. Mugabe, andD. Nanja, “Climate variability and change or multiplestressors? Farmer perceptions regarding threats to livelihoodsin Zimbabwe and Zambia,” Journal of Environmental Man-agement, vol. 102, pp. 9–17, 2012.

[72] B. Van Campenhout, S. Vandevelde, W. Walukano, andP. Van Asten, “Agricultural extension messages using videoon portable devices: Increase knowledge about seed selectionand seed storage and handling among smallholder potatofarmers in southwestern Uganda,” PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 1,Article ID e0169557, 2016.

[73] G. Ziervogel, S. Bharwani, and T. E. Downing, “Adapting toclimate variability: pumpkins, people and policy,” in NaturalResources Forum, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 294–305, BlackwellPublishing Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006.

[74] E. Chidumayo, D. Okali, G. Kowero, and M. Larwanou,Climate Change and African Forest and Wildlife Resources,African Forest Forum, Nairobi, Kenya, 2011.

[75] L. Hazzah, S. Dolrenry, D. Kaplan, and L. Frank, “+e in-fluence of park access during drought on attitudes towardwildlife and lion killing behaviour in Maasailand, Kenya,”Environmental Conservation, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 266–276, 2013.

[76] B. A. Gyampoh, S. Amisah, M. Idinoba, and J. Nkem, “Usingtraditional knowledge to cope with climate change in ruralGhana,” Unasylva, vol. 60, pp. 70–74, 2009.

[77] M. Mortimore and A. Manvell, Climate Change: EnhancingAdaptive Capacity: Natural Resources Systems ProgramBriefing Note, 2001.

[78] P. Maundu, E. Bosibori, S. Kibet et al., Safeguarding In-tangible Cultural Heritage: A Practical Guide to DocumentingTraditional Foodways, UNESCO, Paris, France, 2013, http://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/safeguarding-intangible-cultural-heritage-a-practical-guide-to-documenting-traditional-foodways/.

[79] P. M. Maundu, M. G. Ngugi, and C. H. S. Kabuye, TraditionalFood Plants of Kenya (National Museum of Kenya), UNESCO,Kenya, 1999.

[80] K. Mogotsi, A. B. Moroka, O. Sitang, and R. Chibua, “Seasonalprecipitation forecasts: agro-ecological knowledge amongrural Kalahari communities,” African Journal of AgriculturalResearch, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 916–922, 2011.

[81] T. Chari, M. Mulaudzi, and M. Masoga, “Introduction: to-wards the integration of indigenous knowledge Systems intoclimate change science,” Indilinga African Journal of In-digenous Knowledge Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. v–xii, 2016.

[82] P. Mapfumo, F. Mtambanengwe, and R. Chikowo, “Buildingon indigenous knowledge to strengthen the capacity ofsmallholder farming communities to adapt to climate changeand variability in southern Africa,” Climate and Development,vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 72–82, 2016.

Scientifica 15

Research ArticleOccurrence of Clinostomum Metacercariae in Oreochromismossambicus fromMashokoDam,MasvingoProvince, Zimbabwe

Casper Mutengu 1 and Wilson Mhlanga 2

1Department of Biological Science, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe2Department of Natural Resources, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe

Correspondence should be addressed to Wilson Mhlanga; wmhlanga63@gmail.com

Received 10 May 2018; Accepted 20 September 2018; Published 15 November 2018

Guest Editor: John. F. Mupangwa

Copyright © 2018 Casper Mutengu andWilson Mhlanga. *is is an open access article distributed under the Creative CommonsAttribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

Mashoko Dam is in Ago-ecological Region 4 in Zimbabwe. Five sampling sites were randomly selected and each site was sampledtwice per month, for six months. A total of 180 Oreochromis mossambicus fish (101 females and 79 males) were caught. *e fishwere examined for Clinostomum metacercariae by cutting the ventral side from the anal opening to the lower jaw. *e gillchambers were examined and inspected visually to detect macroscopic parasites. Of the 180 fish collected during the study, 113(62.8%) were infected by 284 Clinostomum larvae in the cranial cavity while 67 fish were not infected. Among the infected fish, 46were males and 67 were females. Greater parasite burden and mean intensity were observed in female fish (2.7MI) than males(2.2MI). *ere was no statistically significant difference in mean intensity of infection between male and female fish (n � 180;t � 0.521; p< 0.05). Uninfected fish were in a poorer condition than infected fish in July and October only. *e lowest monthlycondition factor for both infected (1.8) and uninfected (1.7) fish occurred in October. *e monthly condition factors for bothinfected (1.94–3.51) and noninfected fish (1.81–5.28) were greater than 1. For prevalence by total length groups, highest prevalence(66.3%) was recorded in the medium length group (10–12 cm) and lowest (25.0%) in the (16–18 cm) length group. Highest meanintensity (2.8) and parasite density (146 parasites) was observed in the length group (13–15 cm) and lowest mean intensity (1.0) inlarger length groups (16–18 cm and above 19 cm). Highest abundance (1.74) was recorded in the length group 13–15 cm and lowestabundance (0.25) in the length group 16–18 cm. Parasite burden was positively correlated to fish size (total length). It wasconcluded that Clinostomum metacercariae are a common parasite in Oreochromis mossambicus in Mashoko dam.

1. Introduction

Parasites are common among fishes, affecting them ina variety of ways [1]. Fish parasites are among the key threatsto the sustainability of fisheries that support about 90millionpeople around the world as a source of protein and income[2]. Parasitic infections of fish have human health, as well associoeconomic implications, both in developing and de-veloped countries [3]. Parasites compete for food, therebydepriving fish of essential nutrients and inhibiting growthleading to morbidity and mortality with consequent eco-nomic losses [4]. Parasites also inflict damage on the hosts,sometimes causing gross mortalities, which can lead to greatlosses in commercial fisheries and aquaculture [5]. Fish

parasites have the potential to affect fish through loss ofblood and nutrients as well as the invasion of biochemicalprocesses in the host fish [6]. In some cases, parasitised fishare so unsightly that they are rejected by consumers [6].Studying parasites contributes towards a better un-derstanding of the ecology of a system and also helps todevelop appropriate methods of controlling them [7].

Parasites render fish susceptible to secondary infectionby disease-causing agents such as bacteria, fungi, and viruses[8]. *e extent of fish infection by certain parasites can beused as an early warning indicator of deteriorating waterquality [9]. *e use of indicators allows evaluating the risk ofexposure, acting as early warning systems for environmentaldeterioration [10].

HindawiScientificaVolume 2018, Article ID 9565049, 6 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9565049

*e life cycle of digeneans such as Clinostomum includesa molluscan host, fish (second intermediate host), anda definitive host which is usually a piscivorous bird [11].Many species of freshwater fishes were recorded as thesecond intermediate host of Clinostomum metacercariae[12]. Juvenile fish, shallow water inhabitants, and bottomdwellers are the most vulnerable [13]. Most freshwater andestuarine fish are potential hosts for Clinostomum sp.metacercariae, and some warm-water fish species such asbluegill, largemouth, and catfish are also affected [13].Aquatic birds also help in the dispersal of Clinostomumlarvae [14]. Piscivorous birds such as herons, egrets, pelicans,and cormorants are the definitive hosts for many of theClinostomum metacercariae found in fish [15]. Paperna [6]also reported that piscivorous birds that included the darter(Anhinga rufa) were definitive hosts for species ofClinostomum.

*e description of Clinostomum tilapiae was done byUkoli [16]. Ukoli [17] conducted life history and growthstudies of Clinostomum tilapiae.

Heavy gill infection appears to lower respiratory effi-ciency [6]. While clinical effects of infection are usually notobvious, sudden, massive outbreaks of infection can be fatal[6]. In a study of parasites in the cichlid Oreochromismossambicus, Olivier et al. [18] noted that, although cli-nostomid metacercariae cysts did not cause any deleteriouseffects in adult fish, severe infestation of E. heterostomum injuveniles resulted in locomotory impairment.

Echi and Ojebe [19] reported that there was a paucity ofinformation regarding host specificity of clinostomatid in-fection. Generally, Clinostomum species do not display anyhost specificity, they seem to be more attracted to cichlids ascompared to other species [19]. Immune resistance to cli-nostomatid infections is low, hence making them moresusceptible to clinostomatid infections [19].

During the importation of fish, the movement anddisposal of contaminated water, containers, and otherequipment into rivers or dams contribute to the in-troduction and transport of parasites [20].

Clinostomum metacercariae can be observed as yellowcysts embedded in muscles or beneath the skin, especially atthe base of the tail of fins in fish but heavy infestations arefound in the body cavity, head, throat, and gills [21]. Ina study of parasites in the cichlid Tilapia zilli, Echi et al. [22]noted that the Clinostomummicrohabitats in T. zilliwere thebuccal cavity, eye, and skin, with the highest infection oc-curring in the buccal cavity. Clinostomum are also commonin the caudal, dorsal, and pectoral fins, on the inside surfaceof the operculum and in the flesh of many fishes [21]. Di-genetic trematodes are of great interest in many countries,especially for human health care against transmissible dis-eases [23].

Heavy infestations of Clinostomum (“yellow grub”) ac-cumulate in freshwater fish which are classified by fishermenas unfit for human consumption [5]. *e parasites areconsidered one of the most common parasites infecting fish,causing low weight, reduced marketability, and high mor-tality [5]. Yellow grub may kill fish under some circum-stances, but normally fish are not noticeably affected by the

parasite [13]. Clinostomum metacercariae species havezoonotic importance in the transmission of yellow grubdisease to humans [6]. Humans get infected by the disease asa result of ingesting raw or improperly cooked fish [6]. *efluke becomes accidentally attached onto the surface of themucus membranes of the throat and causes a clinical syn-drome called halzoun [24]. Cooking of fish destroys the grubwithout altering the flavour of the fish [24].

In Zimbabwe, there have been several studies on fishparasites. *ese include the studies in Lake Kariba [25–29].In these studies, Contracaecum larvae were present in thebody cavity and intestines of siluriform and cichlid fishes, aswell as the tigerfish (Hydrocynus vittatus) [4]. Douellou andErlwanger [28] recovered Clinostomum metacercaria innonsiluroid fishes in Lake Kariba. Magadza [30] reported theoccurrence of Clinostomum in Oreochromis mossambicusand Tilapia rendalli in Lake Kariba. A study of Centrocestusformosanus in Barbus fasciolatus was done by Beverly-Burton [31] from Mazowe and Kadoma, while Khalil andPolling [4] recorded the occurrence of the nematodesContracaecum larvae and Procamallanus laevionchus inClarius gariepinus from Lake Kariba.

Zimbabwe has no natural lakes but has many man-madereservoirs, many of which support important capture fish-eries. One of these is Mashoko dam in Masvingo Province.Man-made impoundments are becoming important for fishproduction [32].

*e quality of fish from the Mashoko dam is of concernto fishermen and fish consumers. Fish consumers and fishershave reported the occurrence of parasitic larvae in breams(cichlids) from Mashoko dam. Due to these concerns byfishers and consumers, it was necessary to study the oc-currence of yellow grub (Clinostomum) in Mozambiquebream (Oreochromis mossambicus) fromMashoko dam.*eobjectives of the study were to determine the following:

(a) Presence of Clinostomum larvae in O. mossambicusfrom Mashoko dam

(b) Mean parasite intensity (MI) of infection in O.mossambicus

(c) *e relationship between parasitic burden and fishsex and size (total length)

(d) *e monthly mean condition factor of infected anduninfected O. mossambicus.

2. Materials and Methods

Mashoko dam is a man-made impoundment created in 1994by the damming of Chenjere River [33]. *e dam was con-structed with the goal of providing water for irrigation, fordomestic use, and for livestock [33]. It is located at geo-graphical coordinates, Latitude 20°483′S, and Longitude31°767′E, and has a width of 790m, length of 1.5 km, and awallheight of 19.2m [23]. *e dam has a catchment area of 1536 km2 and a volume of 1.5 × 106m3 at full capacity, witha surface area of approximately 70 hectares [33].

Sampling was conducted twice every month for a periodof six months (June to November 2016). Fish were caught by

2 Scientifica

licensed artisanal local fishermen using canoes and gill nets.*e gill nets used were 30m long with a mesh size of 76mm.Gill nets were set overnight. *e nets were set between 1700hours and 1830 hours and were retrieved the next morningbetween 0600 hours and 0800 hours.

Data collected for each individual fish included TotalLength (TL), Standard Length (SL), sex and wet weight (g),and infection status of each fish by Clinostomum larvae.Statistical computations of monthly mean parasite intensity,prevalence, and abundance were carried out using MicrosoftExcel (2013). Pearson’s correlation analysis was used todetermine the relationship between parasite burden and fishlength. *e relationship between parasite burden and sexwas determined using Student’s t-test in SPSS version 20. Allthe statistical analyses were carried out at 95% confidenceinterval. *e monthly condition factors (cf ) of infected anduninfected fish were determined using the equation

cf �(W × 100)

SL3, (1)

whereW � weight in grams (wet/ungutted weight) and SL �

standard length in centimetres [34].

3. Results and Discussion

A total of 180 individuals of Oreochromis mossambicus (101females and 79 males) were caught during the study. All thefish were examined for the presence of Clinostomum par-asites. One hundred and thirteen fish specimens were foundinfected by 284 Clinostomum metacercariae.

*e occurrence of Clinostomum larvae primarily reflectsthe type of habitat of their intermediate hosts (snails) or finalhosts (birds). Parasites are a natural component of theenvironment, present in all ecosystems [34]. Aquatic hab-itats offer ideal conditions for the maintenance and evolu-tion of parasite life cycles [35]. Water providesa physiologically stable and buffered environment for par-asites [36]. *e viscosity of water facilitates dispersal andsurvival of parasite eggs and their fragile free-living stages[37].

Food webs in aquatic ecosystems are relatively long andintricate and this has, in many cases, enabled the devel-opment of complex parasite life cycles [38]. Fish play animportant role as consumers in aquatic food chains and alsooffer a large surface area for encounter and colonisationwhich allow them to be frequently utilized as hosts byparasitic organisms [38]. In addition, fishes are highlymobile, and this may be attractive to some parasites sincethey create the potential for further dispersal [39]. Due tothese factors the occurrence of parasites is a commonphenomenon in aquatic ecosystems [38]. Parasites of Cli-nostomum were prevalent in O. mossambicus as shown inTable 1.

Conditions in water such as oxygen content and salinity,coupled with pollutants, directly or indirectly influence boththe prospective host and the parasite, but in most cases, theyenhance survival of the parasite [35]. Man-made open waters(dams) represent more suitable environments for comple-tion of digenean trematode life cycles than riverine habitats

[40]. Dams also provide conditions such as higher watertemperature and lower water velocity that encourage thepresence of snails and birds [41].

Of the 180 specimens of O. mossambicus collectedduring this study, 113 (62.8%) were infected with Clinos-tomum larvae. A total of 284 parasites were recovered duringthe study. A mean intensity (MI) of 2.5 worms per fish anda maximum intensity of 16 worms per fish were recorded.

More worms were recovered from female fish than males(Table 2). Female fish had a higher prevalence percentage ofinfection than males. *e study also revealed that female O.mossambicus had a greater parasitic load than males. Rohde[42] noted that endoparasites infest fish sexes differently.Helminths are mostly found in freshwater fishes wherefactors such as parasite and its biology, host and its feedinghabitats, physical factors, and presence of intermediate hostscontribute to their prevalence and intensity [43, 44]. *eresults in this study were different from the findings ofearlier researchers in some freshwater fish species. For in-stance, more males than females of Oreochromis niloticusand Tilapia zilli from the Asa dam, north central Nigeria,were infected with Clinostomum tilapia larvae [45].

*e results of the t-test showed that mean intensity ofinfection was not significantly different between the sexes(n � 180; t � 0.521; p< 0.05). In a study of Neutra clinos-tomum intermedial in O. mossambicus in the Middle Letabadam in South Africa, there was no marked difference in theinfestation rates between the male and female fish [18].

*e location of Mashoko dam renders it susceptible topollution by inorganic fertilisers from the communal areasand sewage effluent from the police camp, business centre,and teachers’ cottages. *is pollution could have favouredthe prevalence of the parasites. Fish in polluted waters tendto harbour more endoparasites than those in less or un-polluted environments [46, 47]. *is is likely due to in-creased physiological stress in the fish due to the constantexposure to poorer quality water [47].

*e relationship between Clinostomum burden and totallength of O. mossambicus was significant (r2 � 0.76; p< 0.05).Previous studies on the relationship between parasite burdenand size of fish (total length and weight) have reported con-trasting results. In some cases, there was a positive correlation[48], while in other studies, there was no correlation [49].

Uninfected fish were in poorer condition than infectedfish in July and October only (Table 3). In this study, thebreeding stage of fish was not recorded.*erefore, it was notpossible to determine the condition of the fish during thebreeding season as condition is lower soon after breeding.*e low condition factor in October may have been relatedto breeding activities. Apart from October, the monthlycondition factor did not show any definite trend in the othermonths. Since sampling was conducted for only 6 months, itwas not possible to come up with definite conclusions re-garding the annual cycle. Some studies have reporteda higher prevalence in the dry season than the wet season,and this was attributed to habitat contraction [19]. Otherstudies of the occurrence of Clinostomum metacercariae inMozambique bream O. mossambicus have reported nosignificant seasonal difference in infestation [18].

Scientifica 3

*e lowest mean condition factor for both infected anduninfected fish occurred during the month of October. Ina study in Malilangwe reservoir, south-eastern lowveld inZimbabwe, mean condition factor (K) values were greaterthan one (1.34–9.29) forO. mossambicus,O. placidus, andO.macrochir, C. gariepinus, and L. altivelis, while it was lessthan one for H. vittatus (0.82–3.09) [50]. Condition factorsgreater than 1 suggest that fish are in a healthy condition[50]. In the current study, the mean condition factor (meancf.) values obtained for both infected (1.9–3.3) and un-infected (1.8–3.4) O. mossambicus were greater than one.*e condition factors observed in this study were similar tothose obtained in Malilangwe reservoir in Zimbabwe.

*e results indicate that, although O. mossambicus wasinfected with Clinostomum parasites, it still had good condi-tion. *e infected fish were in good condition in Mashokodam. Barson [51] observed that, even though heavy infestationin fish did not affect the condition of the host, it may render thefish unsightly and unsuitable for human consumption espe-cially if the larvae encysted in the muscle tissues.

Fish also lose condition as they mobilise energy reservesfor reproduction.*emonthly condition of most fish speciesdeclines during summer [52]. He concluded that there areseasonal differences in condition of fish. A seasonal variationin fish condition was not clearly observed in the currentstudy because the fish were sampled for only 6 months of theyear. *e condition factor of fish usually goes through anannual cyclical pattern [50].

In this study, there was a positive correlation betweenparasite burden and size of fish (Table 4). A similar

correlation was observed by Price and Clancy [48]. Severalstudies have also reported increased parasite prevalence andintensity with increased fish size [11, 18, 19].

In a study of Clinostomum metacercaria in Schilbeintermedius, the prevalence of parasites increased graduallywith increased fish size, while the mean intensity was highestin the smallest length group and lowest in the largest lengthgroup [53]. In other studies, there was no correlation [49].

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

*e results show that Clinostomum metacercariae are im-portant helminth parasites of O. mossambicus in Mashokodam with 62.8% of sampled fish having been infected [54].More parasites and greater mean parasite intensity occurredin female than in male fish. *e difference in mean intensityof infection between male and female fish was not statisti-cally significant. *ere was a positive correlation betweenparasite burden and fish size (total length). *e monthlymean condition of O. mossambicus was not significantlydifferent between infected and noninfected fish.

It is recommended that further studies of the occurrenceof parasites be carried out for at least two full years so as tocapture any possible cyclical and annual patterns. *e waterquality of Mashoko dam should also be studied to determineboth the physicochemical and bacteriological characteristicssince the dam receives run-off from farms as well as do-mestic effluent from the surrounding community. Furtherstudies should also compare parasite occurrence inMashokodam (lentic environment) and the Chenjere River (loticenvironment).

Data Availability

*e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

*e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interestregarding this manuscript.

Table 2: Prevalence and mean intensity of Clinostomum in female and male O. mossambicus.

Sex Number of hosts examined Number of hosts infected Number of parasites recovered Prevalence (%) Mean intensityFemale 101 67 183 66.3 2.7Male 79 46 101 58.2 2.2

Table 3: Monthly mean condition factors for infected and un-infected O. mossambicus from June to November 2016.

Month Fish status Mean condition factor Standard devJune Infected 3.1 0.8June Uninfected 3.4 1.1July Infected 3.3 1July Uninfected 3 0.6August Infected 3.1 0.4August Uninfected 3.1 0.4September Infected 3.1 0.4September Uninfected 3.1 0.8October Infected 1.9 0.3October Uninfected 1.8 0.5November Infected 3.1 0.2November Uninfected 3.1 0.2

Table 4: Correlation between Clinostomum burden and totallength of O. mossambicus (r2 � 0.76).

Parasite species Fish species r valueClinostomum O. mossambicus 0.87

Table 1: *e prevalence, mean intensity, and abundance of Clinostomum in O. mossambicus (n � 284).

Parasites No. of infected fish Prevalence (%) Mean intensity (SD)Clinostomum species 113 62.8 2.5 ± 0.95

4 Scientifica

Acknowledgments

*e assistance rendered by members of Mashoko FishingCooperative, namely, Messrs T. Mashavira, M. Gwamure, A.Mawanza, and G. Mutsau, during the field work is gratefullyacknowledged. Special thanks also go to the technical staff atMashoko High School and Bindura University BiologyLaboratories for their assistance in laboratory work. *esupport from Mashoko High School Science Departmentduring this study is also acknowledged.

References

[1] R. A. Khan, K. Ryan, D. E. Barker, and E. M. Lee, “Effect ofa single Lernaeocera branchialis (crustacea: copepoda) ongrowth of Atlantic cod,” Journal of Parasitology, vol. 79, no. 6,pp. 954–958, 1993.

[2] FAO 2016, Fisheries and Aquaculture, *e State of WorldFisheries and Aquaculture, Sofia, Rome, 2016.

[3] R. Poulin, “Toxic pollution and parasitism in freshwater fish,”Parasitology Today, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 58–61, 1992.

[4] L. F. Khalil and L. Polling, Checklist of the Helminth Parasitesof African Freshwater Fishes, University of the North, Lim-popo, South Africa, 1997.

[5] R. J. Roberts, Fish Pathology, WB Saunders, Philadelphia, PA,USA, 2001.

[6] I. Paperna, Parasites, Infections and Diseases of Fishes inAfrica: An Update, FAO/CIFA, Rome, Italy, 1996.

[7] A. Avenant-Oldewage, Protocol for the assessment of fishhealth based on the health index: report and a manual fortraining of field workers to the RandWater Board, RandWaterBoard, Gauteng, South Africa, 2001.

[8] R. Poulin, “*e evolution of monogenean diversity,” In-ternational Journal for Parasitology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 245–254, 2002.

[9] K. MacKenzie, H. H. Williams, B. Williams, A. H. McVicar,and R. Siddal, “Parasites as indicators of water quality and thepotential use of helminth transmission in marine pollutionstudies,” Advances in Parasitology, vol. 35, pp. 85–144, 1995.

[10] H. W. Palm, Fish Parasites as Biological Indicators ina Changing World, Universitat Rostock, Rostock, Germany,2011.

[11] J. Dabrowski, “Water quality, metal bioaccumulation andparasite communities of Oreochromis mossambicus in loskopdam, Mpumalanga, South Africa,” M. S. thesis, University ofPretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 2012.

[12] Y. Aohagi, T. Shibahara, and K. Kagota, “Clinostomumcomplanatum (Trematoda) infection in fresh water fish fromfish dealers in Tottori,” Journal of Veterinary Medical Science,vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 153-154, 1993.

[13] D. I. Chung, H. H. Kong, and C. H. Moon, “Demonstration ofthe intermediate hosts of Clinostomum complanatum inKorea,” Journal of Parastology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 305–312,1995.

[14] G. L. Uglem, O. R. Larson, J. M. Aho, and K. J. Lee, “Finestructure and SugarTransport functions of the teguments inClinostomum marginatum (digenea): clinostomatidae:enviromental effects on the adult phenotype,” Journal ofParastology, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 658–662, 1991.

[15] G. I. Hoffman, Parasites of North American Freshwater Fishes,Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1999.

[16] F. M. A. Ukoli, “On Clinostomum tilapiae n.sp., and C.phalacrocoracisDubois, 1931 from Ghana, and a discussion of

the systematics of the genus Clinostomum Leidy, 1856,”Journal of Helminthology, vol. 40, no. 1-2, pp. 187–214, 1966.

[17] F. M. A. Ukoli, “On the life history, growth and developmentfrom the metacercarial stage to adulthood, of Clinostomumtilapiae Ukoli, 1966,” Journal of Helminthology, vol. 40, no. 1-2, pp. 215–226, 1966.

[18] P. A. S. Olivier, W. J. Luus-Powell, and J. E. Saayman, “Reporton some monogenean and clinostomid infestations offreshwater fish and waterbird hosts in middle letaba dam,Limpopo Province, South Africa,” Onderstepoort Journal ofVeterinary Research, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 187–199, 2009.

[19] P. C. Echi and M. O. Ojebe, “Differences in host-infectionpatterns of clinostomatids (Clinostomatidae) in human dis-turbed aquatic ecosystems against undisturbed lake,” Bra-zilian Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 97–103,2016.

[20] E. Peeler, M. *rush, L. Palsley, and C. Rodgers, “An as-sessment of the risk of spreading the fish parasiteGyrodactylussalaries to uninfected territories in the European Union withthe movement of live Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fromcoastal waters,” Aquaculture, vol. 258, no. 1-4, pp. 187–197,2006.

[21] L. S. Roberts and J. Janovy, Foundations of Parasitology,McGraw-Hill International Editions, Boston, MA, USA, 6thedition, 2000.

[22] P. C Echi, J. E. Eyo, F. C. Okafor, G. C. Onyishi, and N. Ivoke,“First record of Co – infection of three clinostomatid parasitesin cichlids (Osteichthyes: Cichlidae) in a tropical freshwaterlake,” Iranian Journal of Public Health, vol. 41, no. 7,pp. 86–90, 2012.

[23] Michigan Government, Yellow Grub Clinostomum (Trem-atoda), Department of Natural Resources and Environment:Michigan University, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2001.

[24] T. Kifune, M. Ogata, and M. Miyahara, “*e first case ofhuman infection with clinostomum (Trematoda: Clinosto-midae) in yamaguchi prefecture, Japan,” Med Bull FukuokaUniversity, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 101–105, 2000.

[25] A. M. M. Chishawa,A Survey of Parasites of:ree SiluriformesFish Species in Lake Kariba, University Lake Kariba ResearchStation Bulletin, University of Zimbabwe, Kariba, Zimbabwe,1991.

[26] L. Douellou, A survey of fish parasites in Lake Kariba, Uni-versity Lake Kariba Research Station Bulletin, University ofZimbabwe, Kariba, Zimbabwe, 1992.

[27] L. Douellou, Parasites of Oreochromis mortimeri (Trewavas,1966) and Tilapia rendalli rendalli (Boulenger, 1836) in LakeKariba, Zimbabwe, University Lake Kariba Research StationBulletin, University of Zimbabwe, Kariba, Zimbabwe, 1992.

[28] L. Douellou and K. H. Erlwanger, “Occurrence and distri-bution of two Clinostomatidmetarcercariae in fishes fromLake Kariba, Zimbabwe,” Transactions of Zimbabwe ScientificAssociation, vol. 66, pp. 35–40, 1993.

[29] L. Douellou and A. M. M. Chishawa, “Monogeneans of threesiluriform fish species in Lake Kariba Zimbabwe,” Journal ofAfrican Zoology, vol. 109, pp. 99–115, 1995.

[30] C. H. D. Magadza, Parasites of Fishes of Lake Kariba and OtherFish Studies ULKRS Bulletin, University of Zimbabwe, LakeKariba Research Station, Kariba, Zimbabwe, 1991.

[31] M. Beverly-Burton, “Some trematodes from Clarias spp. inthe Rhodesias including Allocredium mazoensis n. sp. andEumasenia bangweulensis sp, and comments on the species ofthe genusOreintocredium, Tabangui, 1993,” Proceedings of theHelminthological Society of Washington, vol. 29, no. 2,pp. 103–115, 1962.

Scientifica 5

[32] V. V. Sugunan, “Ecology and fishery management of reser-voirs in India,” Hydrobiologia, vol. 430, no. 1–3, pp. 121–147,2000.

[33] ZINWA, Impoundments of the Save-Runde Catchment Area,ZINWA, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2001.

[34] P. A. Aloo, “Ecological studies of helminth parasites of thelargemouth bass, Microperus salmoides, from lake Naivashaand the Oloidien Bay, Kenya. Onderstepoort,” Journal ofVeterinary Research, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 73–79, 1999.

[35] M. Pietrock and D. J. Marcogliese, “Free-living endo-helminth stages: at the mercy of environmental condi-tions,” Trends in Parasitology, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 293–299, 2003.

[36] H. W. Palm, Chapter 12: Fish Parasites as Biological Indicatorsin a ChangingWorld, Universitat Rostock, Rostock, Germany,2011.

[37] R. M. Overstreet, “Parasitic diseases of fishes and their re-lationship with toxicants and other environmental factors,”Pathobiology of Marine and Estuarine Organisms, vol. 5,pp. 111–155, 1993.

[38] D. J. Marcogliese, “Food webs and the transmission of par-asites to marine fish,” Parasitology, vol. 124, no. 7, pp. S83–S99, 2002.

[39] D. J. Marcogliese, “Pursuing parasites up the food chain:implications of food web structure and function on parasitecom-munities in aquatic systems,” Acta Parasitologica,vol. 46, pp. 82–93, 2001.

[40] E. M. Mbokane, “Metazoan parasites and health of selectedcyprinids at Nwaledi-Luphephe Dams,” M.Sc. dissertation,University of Limpopo, Limpopo, South Africa, 2011.

[41] M. Ondrackova, A. Nimkova, M. Gelnar, and P. Jurajda,“Poisthodiplo stomum cuticola (Digenea: Diplostomatidae) inintermediate fish hosts: factors contributing to the parasiteinfection and pre selection by definitive bird host,” Parasi-tology, vol. 129, no. 6, pp. 761–770, 2004.

[42] K. Rohde, Ecology of Marine Parasites, CAB International,Wallingford, UK, 2nd edition, 1993.

[43] K. J. Chandra, “Fish parasitological studies in Bangladesh:a review,” Journal of Agriculture & Rural Development, vol. 4,no. 1, pp. 9–18, 2006.

[44] A. Hussen, M. Tefera, and S. Asrate, “Gastro-intestinal hel-minth parasites ofClarias gariepinus (catfish) in lake Hawassa,Ethiopia,” Scientific Journal of Animal Science, vol. 1, no. 4,pp. 131–136, 2012.

[45] P. A. Aloo, “A comparative study of helminth parasites fromthe fish Tilapia zilli and Oreochromis leucostictus in LakeNaivasha and Oloidien Bay, Kenya,” Journal of Helminthol-ogy, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 95–104, 2002.

[46] H. Moller and K. Anders, Diseases and Parasites of MarineFishes, Kiel: Moller, Kiel, Germany, 1986.

[47] P. P. Ramollo, “Bioassessing the impact of water quality on thehealth and parasite composition of Oreochromis mossambicusat the Phalaborwa Industrial Complex (PIC) and the barrage(olifants river) in the Limpopo Province, South Africa,” M. S.thesis, University of Limpopo, Limpopo, South Africa, 2008.

[48] P. W. Price and K. M. Clancy, “Patterns in number of hel-minth parasite species of freshwater fishes,” Journal of Par-asitology, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 449–454, 1983.

[49] P. Sasal, S. Morand, and J. F. Guegan, “Determinants ofparasite species richness in Mediterranian marine fish,”Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 149, pp. 61–71, 1997.

[50] T. Dalu, B. Clegg, and T. Nhiwatiwa, “Length-weight re-lationships and condition factors of six fish species caughtusing gill nets in a tropical African reservoir, Zimbabwe,”

Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, vol. 68, no. 1,pp. 75–79, 2013.

[51] M. Barson, “*e occurrence of Contracaecum spp. larvae(Nematoda: Anisakidae) in the catfish Clarias gariepinus(Burchell) from Lake Chivero, Zimbabwe,” OnderstepoortJournal of Veterinary Research, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 35–39, 2004.

[52] D. H. S. Kenmuir, “*e ecology of the tiger fish, HydrocynusvittatusCastelnau, in Lake Kariba,” inOccasional Papers of theNational Museum and Monuments of Rhodesia, pp. 115–170,National Museums andMonuments Administration, Salisbury,Zimbabwe, 1973.

[53] W. J. Smit and W. J. Luus-Powell, “*e occurrence ofmetazoan endoparasites of Schilbe intermedius ruppell, 1832from the Nwanedi-Luphephe dams in the Limpopo riversystem, South Africa,” African Zoology, vol. 47, no. 1,pp. 35–41, 2012.

[54] Casper Mutengu, “Occurrence of Clinostomum in Oreochro-mis mossambicus from Mashoko Dam, Masvingo Province,Zimbabwe,” M.S. thesis, Bindura University of Science Ed-ucation, Bindura, Zimbabwe, 2017.

6 Scientifica

Research ArticleEffect of Soil Type and Foliar Factors on the Distribution ofImbrasia belina in the Southeastern Lowveld of Zimbabwe

Edward Mufandaedza ,1 Doreen Z. Moyo ,1 and Paul Makoni2

1Midlands State University, Department of Biological Sciences, P.O. Senga, Gweru, Zimbabwe2National University of Science and Technology, Department of Research and Innovation, P.O. Box AC 939, Ascot,Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

Correspondence should be addressed to Edward Mufandaedza; emufandaedza123@gmail.com

Received 28 March 2018; Revised 4 July 2018; Accepted 25 July 2018; Published 1 October 2018

Academic Editor: Edson Gandiwa

Copyright © 2018 Edward Mufandaedza et al. *is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

*e aims of this study were to find out whether soil parameters (i.e., soil texture, soil pH, and available nitrogen (N) andphosphorus (P)) and level of tannins in the bark of tree as measured by total amount of N & P in the droppings significantlyinfluenced Imbrasia belina distribution in the Southeastern Lowveld of Zimbabwe.*e samples were collected in February-March2013. Standard methods were employed on 80 samples across the four tenure regimes studied. Soil pH, percentage clay, silt, andsand were randomly measured across the four tenure regimes. *e study results revealed that soil pH (p � 0.475), % silt(p � 0.172), % sand (p � 0.907), available nitrogen (p � 0.192), available phosphorus (p � 0.247), and the mean tannin level(p � 0.999) influenced the distribution of Imbrasia belina in the study area. Multiple comparison analysis showed that there weresignificant differences in percentage clay (p � 0.044) between Gonakudzingwa Small-Scale Farms (GSSCF) and ChikombedziCommunal Area (CCA). However, Mwenezi Resettlement Area (MRA) and Gonarezhou National Park (GNP) results wereinsignificant for percentage silt (p � 0.172) and percentage sand (p � 0.907), respectively. *e soil and foliar factors discussed arecritical in determining Imbrasia belina distribution, forest health, and vitality.

1. Introduction

An important component of forest ecosystem is its eco-logical health status and the impact it has on sustainablegrowth. Evidence available suggests that new damagingagents are appearing at an increasing rate which could affectfuture sustainability of forest resources [1]. *e effect of soiland foliar factors on distribution of Imbrasia belina is ofcritical importance so as to predict, map, and develop policyoptions for sustainable management as they follow their hostColophospermum mopane (mopane tree).

*e mopane tree is a widespread and important woodyspecies over much of southern Africa, between the Tropic ofCapricorn and 10° south [2]. It is a xeric species of thesavanna woodland forests, being found mostly on heavy-textured soils in flat valley bottoms such as Zambezi,Okavango, Limpopo, Cunene, Shire, and Luangwa [3, 4].*e mopane tree is indigenous to most of southern African

states of Angola, Zimbabwe, northern Namibia, northernBotswana, Southern Zambia, Southern Malawi, Mozambi-que, and northern South Africa [4] and plays host toImbrasia belina (I. belina) that plays an important role in thenutrition of rural communities as it is a good source of vitalcrude proteins (63.5%), crude fats (18%), carbohydrates 11.4(g/100 g), minerals 3.5 (g/100 g), and 543 of energy(kcal/100 g) [5–7]. *is helps to improve the nutritionalcapacities and ultimately reduces health deficiencies. *isshows that Imbrasia belina had considerable potential foralleviating nutritional inadequacies in rural communities,thereby improving livelihoods of malnourished communi-ties. A study by Timberlake [2] confirms that mopane treedistribution follows clay-rich soils, but it is not known whatexplains this relationship. Similar work by Shava [8]modelled the spatial distribution and diversity of dominantwoody species in Zimbabwe. However, the study did notexplain what informs mopane tree distribution. *erefore,

HindawiScientificaVolume 2018, Article ID 9273184, 8 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9273184

this study sought to establish whether the mopane tree andhence Imbrasia belina distribution is influenced by soil andfoliar parameters. *e study hypothesized that Imbrasiabelina distribution was significantly influenced by the soiland foliar factors, and specifically, whether soil texture(i.e., % sand, % silt, and % clay) and foliar analysis(i.e., available nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in parts permillion (ppm) in the soil), tannins (% catechin (CE)), soilpH, total amount of N and P in the droppings of Imbrasiabelina and how these parameters influence Imbrasia belinadistribution. *e information is important in coming upwith sustainable management decisions, which enhancesplanning and mapping of the natural resource.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area. *e study was conducted in the South-eastern Lowveld of Zimbabwe. *e study area occupies theregion 21°00′–22°15′S and 32°30′–32°15′E and covers about300,000 hectares in extent [9]. *e study was conducted infour different property regimes, namely, Gonarezhou Na-tional Park (GNP) (state property), Gonakudzingwa Small-Scale Farms (GSSCF) (private property), ChikombedziCommunal Area (CCA) (common property), and MweneziResettlement Farms (MRA) (state and private property).MRA comprises Edenvale, Jabula, Nardice, and Ironwoodfarms [9]. *e study site is exactly the same site the re-searchers conducted a study on the management of non-timber forest products harvesting with emphasis on the rulesand regulations governing Imbrasia belina access in 2013which was published in the Journal of Agricultural Researchin 2015.

*e study area falls in natural region 5 of Zimbabwe, andrainfall ranges between 400 and 500mm per annum withaverage daily temperatures of 18° to 24°C [9, 10]. *e studyarea experiences three climatic seasons: a hot dry periodfrom August to October, a cold dry period fromMay to July,and a hot wet period from November to April. *e altitudeof the study area varies between 165 and 575m above sealevel [9, 11].*e soils are predominantly shallow sands of thesiallitic group derived from sandstone [9, 12]. According toprior research by the same authors, mopane is the dominanttree species found in the study area in association withKirkiaacuminata, Dalbergia melanoxylon, Adansonia digitata,Combretum apiculatum, Combretum imberbe, Acacianigrescens, and Commiphora species [9].

2.2. Soil and Plant Tissue Sampling. In this study, randomsampling was used to establish sample locations acrossthe four tenure regimes of Gonarezhou National Park,Gonakudzingwa Small-Scale Commercial Farms, MweneziResettlement Area, and Chikombedzi Communal area basedon [8] (Figure 1). *e sampling procedures were done invery high, high, and moderate probability zones of findingImbrasia belina as per the probability map given below. *isenabled random sampling to be done in the woodlandsgiving each probability class an equal chance of beingsampled.

A total of eighty (80) soil samples, Imbrasia belinadroppings, leaf, and Colophospermum mopane bark sampleswere randomly collected from the four tenure regimes. Ofthese eighty soil samples, 20 samples of each parameter wererandomly collected from a 10m× 10m plot in each tenureregime. Of the 20 trees randomly sampled in GSSCF, 15 wereinfested with Imbrasia belina whilst 5 had no sign ofImbrasia belina. Other tenure regimes had the followingtrees infected with Imbrasia belina: CCA had 12 trees in-fected and 8 uninfected; GNP had 8 infected and 12 un-infected; and MRA had 7 infected and 13 uninfected. Anauger in combination with a spade was used to dig the soil toa depth of about 30–45 cm. *e 20 soil samples from eachtenure regime were collected and labelled in terms of tenureregimes, date, and the plot number on A4 khaki envelopes.*e bark samples (20) from each tenure regime were col-lected on the Colophosphermum mopane tree at about 1.3mabove ground using a machete. *e droppings of Imbrasiabelina were collected under the Colophosphermum mopanetree found within the 10m× 10m plot. Bark and leafsamples were collected from the same tree, and thesesamples were further processed at the ICRISAT researchlaboratory, which is about 30 km from Bulawayo city, foranalysis.

2.3. Soil pH Sampling Procedure. *e pH of the soil sus-pension is a logarithmic device used to measure the acidityor alkalinity of the soil on a scale of 0 to 14, with 0 beingacidic, 7 neutral, and 14 alkaline. *e soil pH is expressed asthe inverse log of the hydrogen ion concentration. *e soilpH was determined according to the procedure described byRhoades [13].

2.4. Determination of Soil Phosphorus (P). *e soil solutionwas extracted with 0.5M solution of sodium bicarbonate atpH 8.5 [14]. *e Olsen method is suitable for a wide range ofsoil types and pH values.

2.4.1. Calculation of Phosphorus Concentration. *e con-centration of phosphorus in the sample was expressed in P

mg/kg [14] as shown below:

Figure 1: Colophospermum mopane tree probability map adaptedfrom [8].

2 Scientifica

P(mg/kg) �[(a− b) × v × f × 1000]

1000 × w, (1)

where a � the concentration of P in the sample, b � theconcentration of P in the blank, v � volume of theextracting solution, f � dilution factor, and w �weight ofthe sample.

2.5. Available Nitrogen (N) in the Soil-Colorimetric De-termination of Nitrate. *e determination of nitrate in thesoil was done by extracting 0.5M K2SO4 [15]. *e followingcalculations were done to determine the solution concen-trations for each unknown and the blanks. *is is achievedby subtracting the mean blank value from the unknowns;this gives a value for corrected concentration (C) as shownbelow:

NO3−N(µg/g soil) �(C × V)

W, (2)

where C � corrected concentration (µg/ml), V � extractvolume (ml), and W �weight of the sample (g).

2.6. Soil Texture Particle Size Analysis. *e soil textureparticle size was analyzed by the Bouyoucos method [16].*e hydrometer was calibrated at (20°C), and correctionfactors were made in a temperature-controlled room whichwas kept at the correct temperature. Sand, clay, and siltpercentage (%) calculations were performed by Bouyoucos[16]. After measuring soil texture distributions, the soil wasassigned to a texture class based on the soil textural triangle(Figure 2).

Within the textural triangle are various soil textureswhich depend on the relative proportions of the soil par-ticles. Users simply obtain the appropriate texture based onthe particle size distribution.

2.7. Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus in (Imbrasia belina)Droppings. *e percentage total N and P (droppings)represents the percent of total phosphorus and nitrogen inthe droppings by weight. *e content of total nitrogen andphosphorus was measured in a digest obtained by treatingImbrasia belina droppings with hydrogen peroxide+ sulphuric acid + selenium+ salicyclic acid [17].

2.8. Block Digester Procedure to Determine N and P inImbrasia belina Droppings. *e mean (0.3± 0.001 g) ofoven-dried ground Imbrasia belina droppings (<0.25mm,60 mesh) at (70°C) were weighed into a labelled dry andclean digestion tube. 2.5ml digestion mixture was added toeach tube and the reagent blanks for each batch of samplesusing distillation-titration methods. *e solution was madeup to 50ml with water, and the total N and P in the digestswas determined as outlined below.

2.9. Determination of Total Nitrogen. Acid digestion of theImbrasia belina droppings was achieved using thedistillation-titration methods [17]. Free ammonia was

liberated from the solution by steam distillation in thepresence of excess alkali (NaOH). *e distillate was col-lected in a receiver (50ml conical flask) containing excessboric acid with drops of mixed indicator. An aliquot (5mlfor Imbrasia belina droppings) of the sample solution(digest mentioned above) was transferred to the reactionchamber of the still and added 10ml of 1% NaOH. A steamdistillation apparatus was set up using Markham or Hoskynnitrogen still, and use of NH3-free distilled water whereverpossible was achieved after the procedures of Anderson andIngram [17].

Calculations of percentage N in Imbrasia belina drop-pings were performed:

%N in Imbrasia belina droppings �[(a− b)0.2 × V × 100]

1000 × w × al,

(3)

where a � volume of the titre HCl for the blank, b � volumeof the titre HCl for the sample, V � final volume of thedigestion, w �weight of the sample taken, and al� aliquot ofthe solution taken for analysis.

2.9.1. Total Phosphorus without pH Adjustment UsingAscorbic Acid. 5ml of the supernatant clear wet-asheddigest solution was pipetted into a 50ml volumetricflask. 20ml distilled water was added to each flask. 10ml ofthe ascorbic acid reducing agent was also added to eachflask, beginning with standards (see below). *e contentswere made up to 50ml with water, stoppered, and shakenwell. *e contents were allowed to settle for 1 hour topermit full colour development. *e standards and sampleabsorbance (blue colour) were measured at 880 nm wave-length. Standards were pipetted according to the standardprocedures.

Calculations to determine solution concentrations foreach unknown and the 2 blanks were performed. *e meanblank value was subtracted from the unknowns; this givesa value for the corrected concentration (�c in subsequentcalculations):

P in sample(%) �[c × v × f]

w, (4)

where c � the corrected concentration of P in the sample,v � volume of the digest, f � dilution factor, and w �weightof the sample.

With a 10ml digest aliquot (pH adjustment technique)and a 50ml final dilution are used for colour intensity(absorbency) measurement,

P in sample(%) �[c × 0.025]

w, (5)

where c � the corrected concentration for sample solutionand w � the weight of sample taken.

2.9.2. Vanillin-Hydrochloric Acid Method for Tannin Assays.*e principle of the vanillin-hydrochloric acid procedure oftannin estimation is based on the Burns and Price methods[18, 19].

Scientifica 3

2.9.3. Calculations of Tannin Assays. A standard curve wasprepared by plotting the average absorbance readings of theduplicate determinations against catechin concentrations inmg/ml.

*e sample blank absorbance was subtracted from thesample absorbance. *e absorbance reading was convertedinto concentration of catechin/ml and calculated the cate-chin equivalents (CE) (%) as follows:

[(mg catechin/ml) × volume made up × 100]

volume of extract taken × wt. of sample(mg). (6)

3. Results

*ere were no significant differences in soil pH across the fourtenure regimes of Gonarezhou National Park (GNP), Chi-kombedzi Communal Area (CCA), Gonakudzingwa Small-Scale Commercial Farms (GSSCF), andMwenezi ResettlementArea (MRA). *e available nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)were found not to be significant. However, percentage clay wasfound to be significant whilst % sand, % silt, and tannin levelswere found not to have an effect on the distribution ofImbrasia belina. Table 1 shows the parameters measured,mean, ±standard error (SE), F value, and the significance levelof the measured 80 samples in the four tenure regimes.

In this study, both the nitrogen (p � 0.192) and phos-phorus (p � 0.247) were found not to be significant.However, the mean total percentage of nitrogen (p � 0.659)and phosphorus (p � 0.919) in the droppings of Imbrasiabelina were also found not to be significant.

3.1. Soil pH. *e soil samples results from the four tenureregimes of Gonarezhou National Park (GNP), Chikombedzi

Communal Area (CCA), Gonakudzingwa Small-Scale Com-mercial Farms (GSSCF), and Mwenezi Resettlement Area(MRA) are presented in Figure 3.*e soil pH (p � 0.47) in thestudy area ranged between 5.0M in Mwenezi ResettlementArea (MRA) and 6.5M in Gonarezhou National Park (GNP).

3.2. Soil Texture. *e mean, standard error, F value, and thesignificance level of the different soil textures from differenttenure regimes are given in Table 1. Significant differences inthe soil percentage clay (p � 0.044) were observed betweenGonakudzingwa Small-Scale Farms (GSSCF) andChikombedziCommunal Area (CCA).

3.3. Available Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Total P Droppings to thePlants, and Condensed Tannin. *e available nitrogen,phosphorus, total P, and condensed tannin of Colo-phospermum mopane in the four tenure regimes are shownin Figures 4–7. As for available N, the model output hadR2 � 0.9989, for available P, R2 � 0.9807, total P droppingsR2 � 0.9993, and for the condensed tannin R2 � 0.9819.

3.4. StandardGraphs forN, P, Total P, andCondensedTannin.Standard graphs for N, P, total P, and condensed tannin areprovided in Figures 4–7.

4. Discussion

*e primary function of leaves in plants is to manufacturesugars and carbohydrates [20]. Sugars and carbohydrates arebasic food or energy that plants use for all metabolic ac-tivities such as growth, root development, flower, seedproduction, disease resistance, and so on. *erefore,

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Percent sand

Percent silt

Perce

nt cla

yClay

Sandyloam

Sandy clay loam

Siltyclay loam

Sandy loamSilt loam

Silt

Siltyclay

Loamy

Clay loam

Loam

Sand sand

Figure 2: Soil textural triangle.

4 Scientifica

understanding the effect of soil and foliar analysis in Col-ophospermum mopane distribution and Imbrasia belinadefoliation relations remains critical.

In this study, the percentage clay was found to signifi-cantly influence (p � 0.044) the distribution of Colo-phospermum mopane and hence Imbrasia belina inGonakudzingwa Small-Scale Commercial Farms and Chi-kombedzi Communal Area. *is is in tandem with studiesby Timberlake and Mapaure [2, 4] where Colophospermummopane distribution was found to follow sodic soil condi-tions. *is information is important to explain Imbrasiabelina distribution in the study area. In a related study,Makhado et al. [21] found the distribution of Imbrasia belinato follow the low-lying areas of southern Africa’s savannas.Studies by Hrabar et al. [22] had shown that more detailedtree characteristics, such as leaf size, shoot size, stemnumber, and even leaf chemistry (protein to tannin ratio andtotal polyphenols) had no influence on host choice.*is is inline with findings of this research where tannin levels werefound not to influence the distribution of I. belina.

Table 1: Mean + SE, F value, and the significance level of the parameters measured.

Parameter Number of samples (N) Mean + SE F value Sig. levelpH 80 5.4312± 0.0369 0.843 0.475Avail. N (ppm) 80 1.0086± 0.1598 1.621 0.192Avail. P (ppm) 80 0.0004± 0.0001 1.407 0.247% clay 80 84.7875± 0.4545 1.774 0.044∗∗% silt 80 12.1375± 0.4414 1.709 0.172% sand 80 2.9750± 0.1366 0.184 0.907% CE 80 40.7434± 2.0373 0.01 0.9999% total P 80 0.0933± 0.0030 0.166 0.919% total N 80 0.2531± 0.0029 0.537 0.659∗∗4.4% risk of concluding that a difference exists when there is no actual difference.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

pH

Tenure regime

1–20 Gonarezhou NationalPark (GNP)21–40 Chikombedzi CommunalArea (CCA)

41–60 Gonakudzingwa Small ScaleCommercial Farms (GSSCF)61–80 Mwenezi ResettlementArea (MRA)

Figure 3: Tenure regime versus soil pH.

y = 0.0495x – 0.0475R2 = 0.9989

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 5 10

Abs

orba

nce

Concentration (ppm)

AbsLinear (abs)

Figure 4: Available N standard graph.

Scientifica 5

However, the distribution of Imbrasia belina may notentirely be explained by the sodic soil conditions alone, butother factors should be looked at to give the total picture ofwhat contributes to their distribution. One of the remarkablefeatures of Colophospermum mopane, to note, reported byTimberlake [2] is its ability to formmonospecific stands withan even-sized structure, a feature which, along with itsreadiness to coppice, lends it to Imbrasia belina distributionand aids woodland management. Colophospermum mopanegenerally occurs on clay-rich soils, but it is by no meansconfined to such soils alone [23–26] and indeed grows betteron deeper soils [3, 4, 27].

Colophospermum mopane is a dry species of the savannaecosystem of south tropical Africa, found mostly on heavier-textured soils in the wide, flat valley bottoms of lower

altitude river valleys. It is an adaptable and successful treespecies of south-central Africa, occurring over a wide rangeof ecological conditions, but being found principally in areasof lower agricultural potential and extensive land use. *isbehavior confirms with the results of this study and givesColophospermum mopane an opportunity to expand itsecological range. *ere is a direct relationship between themanagement of Imbrasia belina and its distribution and howaccess is governed by the existence of institutional arrange-ments and common property management regimes [9]. Astudy by Timberlake [2] reported Colophospermum mopaneoccurring on sand overlying a clay-rich layer, such as foundon the deep Kalahari sands and fossil drainage lines of westernregions of Zimbabwe. Pockets of sodium-rich deep duplexsoils particularly with 700mm mean annual rainfall andabove have a better chance of supporting the growth, per-petuation, and distribution of Colophospermum mopane.

*e mean tannin levels across the four tenure regimesindicated that condensed tannins had no effect on thedistribution of Imbrasia belina. *e available nitrogen,phosphorus, total P, and condensed tannin of Colo-phospermum mopane in the four tenure regimes are shownin Figures 4–7. In a related study by Stack and others [28], itwas observed that C. mopane does not contain hydrolysabletannin which is widely accepted as being the primary defensecompounds against insects. *is explains the close associ-ation between I. belina and C. mopane, while mopanewoodland often recovers within a short period after de-foliation with little mortality, and continuous defoliationmay lead to three deaths [29]. A study by Silanikove et al.[30] reported that the major antinutritional effect of con-densed tannin was reduction of protein availability andsuppression of digestive tract enzyme activities. However,condensed tannin on its own cannot explain nutritive valueof browse [31].

An explanation for the apparent lack of importance offoliar quality could be that Imbrasia belina have various

y = 0.1636x + 0.0066R2 = 0.9807

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 5 10

Abs

orba

nce

Concentration (ppm)

AbsLinear (abs)

Figure 5: Available P standard graph.

y = 0.1348x – 0.1332R2 = 0.9993

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 5 10

Abs

orba

nce

Concentration (ppm)

AbsLinear (abs)

Figure 6: Total P droppings standard graph.

y = 0.2528x + 0.0152R2 = 0.9819

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 1 2

Abs

orba

nce

Concentration (ppm)

AbsLinear (abs)

Figure 7: Condensed tannin standard graph.

6 Scientifica

evolved traits allowing them to handle the foliar chemicalcomposition [32]. One such trait, for example, is that larvaemay compensate for suboptimal foods by increasing theiringestion rate or duration of development [33]. Secondly,the larvae could have various physiological and morpho-logical traits enabling them to exploit their host plant, suchas the production of enzymes (in the gut or saliva) thatreduce the detrimental effects of potentially damaging plantcompounds [34]. A third trait applicable to Imbrasia belinacaterpillars is their gregarious feeding behavior when young,as this is known to enhance the ability of herbivores toexploit their host plants [35].

In this study, it is suggested for further research that in-vitro digestibility and in-vitro gas production techniquescould be explored to determine the nutritive value of Col-ophospermum mopane browse with respect to Imbrasiabelina. *e study found out that available P, N, totaldroppings, and condensed tannin did not significantly in-fluence the distribution of Imbrasia belina in the study area.

5. Conclusions

*e aims of this paper were to find out whether soil pa-rameters (i.e., soil texture; soil pH, available nitrogen (N)and phosphorus (P)) and level of tannin in the bark of treesignificantly influenced Imbrasia belina distribution in theSoutheastern Lowveld of Zimbabwe.*e results of this studyshowed that soil texture influenced the distribution ofImbrasia belina between Gonakudzingwa Small-Scale Farmsand Chikombedzi Communal Area (CCA).*is is in tandemwith studies by Timberlake and Mapaure [2, 4] whereColophospermum mopane distribution was found to followsodic soil conditions. However, the distribution of Imbrasiabelinamay not be limited to sodic soil conditions alone, butother factors may need further research to come up witha holistic list of factors that may contribute to theirdistribution.

Data Availability

*e data supporting the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

*e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

*e authors would like to thank the Forestry Commission ofZimbabwe for giving them the time to carry out the study.

References

[1] M. Wulder and S. Franklin, Remote Sensing of Forests Envi-ronments, Concepts and Case Studies, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Boston, MA, USA, 2003.

[2] J. R. Timberlake, Colophospermum Mopane Annotated Bibli-ography and Review, *e Zimbabwe Bulletin of Forestry

Research, no. 11, Forestry Commission, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe,1995.

[3] M. M. Cole, =e Savannas: Biogeography and Geo-otany,Vol. 438, Academic Press, London, UK, 1986.

[4] I. Mapaure, “*e distribution of mopane,” Kirkia, vol. 15,no. 1, pp. 1–5, 1994.

[5] P. A. Hobane, “*e effects of the commercialization of themopane worms,” Natural Resources Management Project,USAID Project No. 690-0251, United States Agency for In-ternational Development, Washington, DC, USA, 1994.

[6] P. A. Hobane, “Amancimbi: the gathering, processing, con-sumption and trade of edible caterpillars in BulilimamangweDistrict,” in Proceedings of Centre for Applied Social Studies,Occasional Paper, vol. 67, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1995.

[7] G. R. Defoliart, “Edible insects as mini-livestock,” Biodiversityand Conservation, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 306–321, 1995.

[8] R. Shava, Modeling the Spatial Distribution and Diversityof Dominant Woody Species in Zimbabwe, Department ofGeography and Environmental Science, University ofZimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2005.

[9] E. Mufandaedza, D. Z. Moyo, and P. Makoni, “Managementof non-timber forest products harvesting: rules and regula-tions governing (Imbrasia belina) access in the South-EasternLowveld of Zimbabwe,” African Journal of Agricultural Re-search, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 1521–1530, 2015.

[10] A. B. Low and A. G. Rebelo, Vegetation of South Africa,Lesotho and Swaziland, Department of Environmental Affairsand Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa, 1996.

[11] D. Mlambo, “Influence of soil fertility on the physiognomy ofthe African Savanna tree Colophospermum mopane,” AfricanJournal of Ecology, vol. 45, pp. 109–111, 2006.

[12] K. Nyamapfene, =e Soils of Zimbabwe, Nehanda Publishers,Harare, Zimbabwe, 1991.

[13] J. D. Rhoades, “Chemical and microbiological properties,” inMethods of soil Analysis, Part 2, A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, andD. R. Keeney, Eds., American Society of Agronomy,Madison,WI, USA, 2nd edition, 1982.

[14] S. R. Olsen, C. V. Cole, F. S. Watanabe, and L. A. Dean,Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction withSodium Bicarbonate, USDA Circular, 939, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 1954.

[15] D. A. Cataldo, M. Haroon, L. E. Schrader, and V. L. Youngs,“Rapid colorimetric determination of nitrate in plant tissue bynitration of salicylic acid,” Communications in the Soil Scienceand Plant Analysis, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 71–80, 1975.

[16] G. J. Bouyoucos, “Hydrometer method improved for makingparticle size analyses of soils,” Agronomy Journal, vol. 53,no. 5, pp. 464-465, 1962.

[17] J. M. Anderson and J. S. I. Ingram, TSBF: A Handbook ofMethods of Analysis, CAB International, Wallingford, UK,1989.

[18] R. E. Burns, Methods of Tannin Analysis for Forage CropEvaluation, Technical Bulletin, No. 32, University of GeorgiaCollege of Agriculture, Athens, GA, USA, 1963.

[19] M. L. Price, S. Van Scoyoc, and L. G. Butler, “A criticalevaluation of the vanillin reactions as an assay for tannins insorghum grain,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 12–14, 1978.

[20] T. Morgan, K. Riley, R. Tinnebring, and F. Veldhuis, Eval-uating the impacts of Small Scale GreenPace: A Case Study ofHarlem Place in downtown Los Angeles: Masters Report,University of California, Barbara, CA, USA, 2010.

[21] R. A. Makhado, I. Mapaure, M. J. Potgietelr, W. J. Luus-Powell, and A. T. Saidi, “‘Factors influencing the adaptation

Scientifica 7

and distributon of Colophospermum mopane in southernAfrica’s mopane savannas–a review’,” Bothalia, vol. 44, no. 1,pp. 1–9, 2014.

[22] H. Hrabar, D. Hattas, and J. T. du Toit, “Intraspecific hostpreferences of mopane moths (Imbrasia belina) in mopane(Colophospermum mopane) woodland,” African Zoology,vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 131–140, 2009.

[23] B. S. Ellis, “A guide to some Rhodesian (Zimbabwe) soils: IIa note on Mopani soils,” Rhodesian Agricultural Journal,vol. 47, pp. 49–61, 1950.

[24] V. Vincent and R. G. *omas, An Agro-Ecological Survey ofSouthern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe): Part 1 Agro-Ecological Survey,Government Printer, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1961.

[25] K. W. Nyamapfene, “A note on some Zimbabwean soil-vegetation relationships of important indicator value in soilsurvey,” Kirkia, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 239–242, 1988.

[26] J. R. Timberlake, N. Nobanda, and I. Mapaure, “Vegetationsurvey of the communal lands-north and west Zimbabwe,”Kirkia, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 171–270, 1993.

[27] P. J. Dye and B. H. Walker, “Vegetation-environment re-lations on sodic soils of Zimbabwe Rhodesia,” Journal ofEcology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 589–606, 1980.

[28] J. Stack, A. Dorward, T. Gondo, P. Frost, F. Taylor, andN. Kurebgaseka, “Mopane worm utilization and RuralLivelihoods in Southern Africa,” in Proceedings of In-ternational Conference on Rural Livelihoods. Forests andBiodversity, Bonn, Germany, May 2003.

[29] S. Adelabu, O. Mutanga, and M. A. Cho, “A review of remotesensing of insect defoliation and its impacts for detection andmapping of Imbrasia belina defoliation of mopane Wood-land,” African Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology,vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2012.

[30] N. Silanikove, N. Gilboa, and Z. Nitsan, “Interaction amongtannins, supplementation and polyethylene glycol in goats fedoak leaves: effects on digestion and food intake,” AnimalScience, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 479–483, 1997.

[31] C. S. McSweeney, B. Palmer, R. Bunch, and D. O. Krause, “Invitro quality assessment of tannin-containing tropical shrublegumes: protein and fibre digestion,” Animal Feed Scienceand Technology, vol. 82, no. 3-4, pp. 227–241, 1999.

[32] R. Karban and A. A. Agrawal, “Herbivore offense,” AnnualReview of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 641–664,2002.

[33] L. A. Schroeder, “Changes in tree leaf quality and regrowthperformance of Lepidopteron larvae,” Ecology, vol. 67, no. 6,pp. 1628–1636, 1986.

[34] E. A. Bernays and R. F. Chapman, “Plant secondary com-pounds and grasshoppers: beyond plant defenses,” Journal ofChemical Ecology, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1773–1794, 2000.

[35] H. F. Nahrung, P. K. Dunstan, and G. R. Allen, “Larvalgregariousness and neonate establishment of the eucalypt-feeding beetle Chrysophtharta Agricola (Coleoptera: Chrys-omelidae: Paropsini),”Oikos, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 358–364, 2001.

8 Scientifica

Research ArticleTowards an Understanding of Conservation-Based Costs,Benefits, and Attitudes of Local People Living Adjacent toSave Valley Conservancy, Zimbabwe

Given Matseketsa , Gladman Chibememe, Never Muboko , Edson Gandiwa ,and Kudakwashe Takarinda

School of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe

Correspondence should be addressed to Given Matseketsa; matseketsagiven@gmail.com

Received 5 April 2018; Accepted 22 July 2018; Published 2 September 2018

Academic Editor: Pablo M. Vergara

Copyright © 2018 Given Matseketsa et al. (is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

Communities juxtaposed to protected areas (PAs) often disproportionally accrue the costs of conservation, but they can alsoreceive benefits from the existence of a PA.(e extent to which local communities benefit or incur costs as a result of residing nextto PAs is of interest to conservationists and policy-makers. (is study sought to understand the costs, benefits, and attitudes oflocal people living adjacent to Save Valley Conservancy (SVC), Zimbabwe.(e purpose was to determine whether benefit and lossaccrual has a bearing on the levels of illicit wildlife-based activities experienced in the SVC. Data were collected througha household questionnaire survey and key informant interviews from April to July 2014. A three-stage sampling was adopted:firstly, purposive sampling was employed to select wards adjacent to the SVC; secondly, random sampling was used to selectvillages within the selected wards; and thirdly, systematic sampling was used to select 71 household questionnaire respondents.Snowball sampling was used to select 9 key informants. (e study results show that the majority of locals living close to SVC arenot deriving discernable benefits and the costs of conservation are escalating influencing negative attitudes towards wildlifeconservation, thus causing them to view wildlife as a nuisance. Overall, our results indicate that conservation losses and benefitaccrual by local communities influence their attitudes toward SVC and conservation in general. We conclude that costs incurredoutweighed the benefits accrued, a situation that triggers a more negative form of reciprocity towards SVC and wildlife con-servation. It is recommended that a more socially and economically inclusive management approach based on a stakeholder-driven access and benefit sharing (ABS) framework be instituted to promote a more positive form of reciprocity towards SVC andnature conservation.

1. Introduction

(e advent of colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries inAfrica saw the twin processes of land and wildlife alienationcreating hostility to wildlife among the affected local people.Colonialism was the entry point through which the fortressconservation doctrine slithered its way into Africa [1, 2].(ismode of conservation spearheaded human-nature di-chotomy through the conceptualization of native resourceusers as the conservation problem [3–5]. So Africans apartfrom being ignored, were overwhelmed, manipulated, andoutmaneuvered by a conservation crusade led, orchestrated,

and dominated by white settlers. Above all, control overnatural resources was wrested from them, and livelihoodpractices such as traditional hunting got criminalized[3, 6, 7]. (e colonizers became avid gamekeepers and theAfricans the poachers. (us, the rural poor had to suffer theconsequences of living with wildlife while reaping nobenefits from wildlife conservation [8, 9]. As a result, one ofthe dominant conclusions that may be drawn from thedecades of research on the social dynamics of biodiversityconservation is that protected areas (PAs) have addedhardship to households in rural communities throughoutmuch of the African countries [10]. Consequently, PAs in

HindawiScientificaVolume 2018, Article ID 6741439, 9 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6741439

Africa share common salient features: historical poor publicrelations and minimal support from local communities[11, 12]. (e land where the natives once hunted game bothfor food and ritual became enclosed and privatized and whatwas once an everyday practice became illicit overnight[8, 13, 14]. Hence, PAs have been heavily criticized forpreserving nature for a wealthy elite [15]. (us, this eth-nocentric conservation strategy characterized with exclusionhas not gained acceptance, as it works against the economicand social interests of local people, and frequently trans-formed wildlife from an asset into a threat and nuisance[16–18]. Scherl et al. [19] posit that PAs should not exist asislands, divorced from the social, cultural, and economiccontext in which they are located. (us, PAs in most de-veloping and independent countries have paid attention tothe issue of communities deriving benefits from them andthey have made this phenomenon become a more practicaland ethical necessity: practical, because to survive, PAs in thepoorer nations must be seen as a land use that contributes aspositively to sustainable development as the other types ofland-use, and ethical, because human rights and aspirationsneed to be assimilated into national and global conservationstrategies if social justice is to be realized [19].

In recent years, after a period of strictly centralizedwildlife management and exclusive wildlife conservation,there has been a commendable attempt to balance the needsfor conservation with those for rural development [20]. In aneffort to redress the colonial injustices, well-meaning con-servationists have embraced the paradigmatic shift in theconservation of wildlife from the historical separatist con-servation approaches termed “conservation against thepeople” by Baldus [8] to present day community-basednatural resources management (CBNRM) [20]. (us, themodern movement in conservation now recognizes PAs tobe socioecological systems as it has been proven beyonddoubt that no PA can succeed for long in the teeth of localopposition [21]. Beyond these advancements, narrowingdown to the Zimbabwean case, political independence haschampioned the resurgence of restoring the right to own andmanage wildlife that had been denied in the colonial era torural communities. In this regard, the state pioneered theCommunal Areas Management Programme for IndigenousResources (CAMPFIRE) initiative [20]. However, the extentto which local communities outside the CAMPFIRE-basedprojects benefit or incur losses due to conservation efforts ingeneral is still a mystery. (e objectives of this study weretherefore to (i) establish the nature of costs incurred bycommunities living adjacent to the SVC, (ii) determine thebenefits local communities derive from SVC, and (iii) assesslocal communities’ attitudes towards the SVC.

1.1. Conceptual Background. (e conceptual framework(Figure 1) explains the interaction occurring between PAmanagement and local communities. (e conceptualframework is premised on the following four assumptions:

(i) Local communities seek benefits and avoid costs(ii) Local communities are rationale beings

(iii) (e standards that local communities use to eval-uate costs and benefits vary over time from personto person

(iv) Relationships are interdependent and dynamic

(e proposed framework examines the relationshipbetween the PA management and the local communitieswho are either positively or negatively affected by the PA.Two factors that influence PA-community relationships areidentified and each of these factors affects the way PAmanagement and communities relate with each other. Costsand benefits as outcomes of conservation affect the way PAmanagement and communities relate with each other. Ifcommunities do not receive benefits and bear costs, they arelikely to have a negative relationship with the PA [22, 23]. Ifthe PA management also do not see the importance ofextending some benefits to the communities or minimizinglevels of wildlife depredation on people’s crops and livestock,they are likely to have a negative relationship with thecommunities. In an attempt to provide a fresh perspective ofassessing PA-community relationships, the framework wasdeveloped from the social exchange theory (SET) which waspropounded by Homans [24]. (e social exchange theorydictates that rational human beings base their behavioralchoices on maximizing gains and minimizing costs [25],implying that if local people benefit from the existence ofa PA, they will be more likely to support conservation andthe continued existence of the PA.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area. (e study was conducted in two wards:Ward (3) and Ward (26) in Bikita district adjacent to thesouthwestern border of SVC, southeastern Zimbabwe(Figure 2). SVC spans an area of 3 400 km2. Up until April2014, it was a cooperatively managed private wildlife area,but in the month of May 2014, it was placed under thecustodianship of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Man-agement Authority (ZPWMA). (e conservancy is locatedin agroecological region V which is a semiarid area in theSouth East Lowveld of Zimbabwe. Its southern boundary isapproximately 45 km northeast of Chiredzi town, whereasthe Save River and Sangwe communal lands mark its easternboundary. Its northern boundary lies not far from Birche-nough Bridge, and its western boundary is formed bya resettlement scheme on land of the former Devuli Ranchand to the South byMatsai Communal area. It is found in theprovince of Masvingo and covers two districts, which areChiredzi and Bikita. It is surrounded by three other districts,which are Zaka, Buhera, and Chipinge. (e conservancy isbordered primarily by high-density communal land (ofbetween 11 and 82 people per km2) [26], with some com-mercial agriculture to the south and east.

2.2. Data Collection. A mixed-methods approach was usedin data collection; it comprised structured householdquestionnaires which were administered via in-person in-terviews; the questionnaires included both open-ended andfixed response questions. Fixed response questions were

2 Scientifica

used to ensure precision of responses, whilst open-endedquestions were also included to obtain more detailedinformation on the nature of costs and benefits of con-servation. (e researchers also used participatory ruralappraisal techniques particularly making use of semi-structured interviews with key informants. (e semi-structured interviews were used to solicit moreinformation. Schensul et al. [27] noted that semistructuredinterviews enable respondents to provide more elaborateand complete answers than fully structured question-naires, and are flexible enough to allow people to explaintheir views in their own words, which can be valuable interms of truly understanding the nature of a particularsituation.

In addition, in order to achieve successful field datacollection, a three-stage sampling design was adopted due tothe nature of the sampling frame, to select the samplingunits. (e first stage was purposive sampling, where twowards (3 and 26) were selected from a total of eight wardswhich were under consideration for sampling. Purposivesampling was found suitable as these study sites were underthe PA-community outreach initiative and also due to theirgeographical proximity to the SVC boundary. (e secondsampling stage used was simple random sampling for villageselection where five villages from eleven villages constituting

the two wards were selected (i.e., Matsai (78), Village 2Angus (65), twenty-six (73), twenty-seven (65), and thirty-one (69) with a total of 350 households). (e third samplingtechnique, systematic sampling, was done to select 71households where questionnaires were administered andcollected in the 5 randomly selected villages representing20% of the targeted population; this was ensured by walkingthrough the village interviewing every second household. Inaddition, key informants interview questionnaire guideswere administered to nine community leaders includingtraditional leaders, village elders, and ward councilors, allfrom the abovementioned wards through snowballsampling.

2.3. Data Analysis. Descriptive statistics were used tosummarize quantitative data sets from household ques-tionnaires. A nonparametric (Kruskal–Wallis-chi-square(χ2)) test was also used to determine whether given re-sponses on costs, benefit from and attitudes towards the SVCdiffer across the five villages. Quantitative analyses wereconducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciencesversion 19 for Windows (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).Qualitative data from semistructured interviews with keyinformants were summarized into percentages, and a qual-itative content analysis technique was used.

Perceptions,attitudes, and behaviours

towards conservation

(–)

(–)

Non-zero-sum outcome(no benefit/no costs)

BenefitsPA-based employment, proteinsupplementation, community

development, ecosystemservices, etc.

Enhanced livelihoods

Reduced conflicts betweenPA management and local

communities,i.e., (+) PA-communityrelationships enhance

conservation

Reduced illegalwildlife-based activities(through (+) reciprocity,

increased tolerance ofproblematic wild animals,

gatekeepers)

Increased illegalwildlife-based activities

(bush meat trade,poaching, timber extractions,and veld-fires). Biodiversity

conservation threatened

Poverty and vulnerabiliy

CostsHWC, i.e., livestock depredation,crop raiding, restricted access to

NRs, loss of human life, anddisease transmission.

PA

PA-humaninterface

Localcommunities

Increased conflictsbetween PA management

and local communities

(+)

(+)

(+/–)

Benefits>costs = enhanced livelihoods cost>benefits = poverty and vulnerability(–) Negative

Positive(+)Refer to actionRefer to interaction

Figure 1: Conceptual framework denoting reciprocity in PA-local community interface based on the social exchange theory (SET). PA,protected area.

Scientifica 3

South Africa

Botswana

Zambia

Save Valley ConservancyGonarezhou National Park

Zimbabwe

Matendere

Chishakwe

Chapungu

Msaize

Sango

UmkondoMine

MokoreBedford Block

Angus

Mukazi

Arda

Hammond

0 20 km

Mukwazi

Impala

Mkwasine

LevangaSenuko

Masapas

Savuli26

3

12

6N

7

8

Mapari

Mozambique

Perimeter fenceInternal ranch boundary (no fence)

RiversStudy wards

Mkwasine River

Turgwe River Savé

Riv

er

Gunundwe

Bulawayo Masvingo

Harare

Humani

Figure 2: Location of the study wards 3 and 26 adjacent to the southwestern SVC, Zimbabwe.

4 Scientifica

3. Results

3.1. Responses from Questionnaire Interviewees on CostsAssociated with Living Closer to SVC

3.1.1. Claims to Incur Wildlife-Induced Costs from SVC.In village twenty-six, a high proportion of respondents(n � 14; 93%) claimed that they incurred costs from wildlifewhilst a minor proportion of the respondents (n � 1; 7%)claimed no such costs (Figure 3). (ere was no significantdifference (KWχ2 � 9.276, df� 4, p> 0.05) in respondentsclaims for incurring costs from wildlife across villages.

3.2. Nature of Costs Incurred. Respondents incur differentkinds of costs from conservation in the SVC. Most (n � 7;64%) of the respondents in village thirty-one reportedlivestock depredation to be the most prevalent cost incurredwhilst a few (n � 2; 18%) of the respondents in village (2)Angus mentioned restricted access to natural resources asa cost incurred (Figure 4). (ere was a significant difference(KWχ2 � 9.980, df� 4, p< 0.05) on the nature of costs in-curred by the local communities across the villages.

3.3. PA-Related Benefits to Local Communities

3.3.1. Claims to Benefit from SVC. Most respondents(n � 39; 55%) mentioned that they do not get benefits,whereas 45% (n � 32) of the respondents indicated that theybenefit from the SVC. (ere was no significant difference(KWχ2 �1.538, df� 4, p> 0.05) on local communities’ viewsin regard to deriving benefits from SVC across the villages.

3.3.2. Nature of Benefits Derived. On the nature of benefitsderived from the SVC, fifty percent (50%; n � 16) of therespondents across the sampled villages claimed that therenovation of local schools is the major benefit derived fromSVC, with few respondents (n � 2; 6%) pointing to boreholedrilling as the least derived benefit from the SVC (Table 1).(ere was no significant difference (KWχ2 � 6.232, df� 4,p> 0.05) on the nature of benefits derived from SVC acrossthe villages.

3.4. Attitudes toward SVC. Respondents’ attitudes towardSVC based on the following response options: (a) “SVC ismore of a liability,” (b) “SVC is for foreign interests,” and (c)“the relationship between SVC and the communities is bad.”

(a) Most (n � 8; 57%) of the respondents in villagethirty-one strongly agreed that SVC is more of a li-ability, whilst a few (n � 1; 6%) of the respondents inMatsai village strongly disagreed that SVC is more ofa liability. (ere was no significant difference(KWχ2 � 5.230, df� 4, p> 0.05) on the ratings ofrespondents attitudes based on (a) (“SVC is more ofa liability”), across the villages.

(b) Many (n � 7; 54%) of the respondents in village (2)Angus strongly agreed that SVC is for foreign in-terests, whereas a few (n � 1; 6%) of the respondents

in Matsai village strongly disagreed that SVC is forforeign interests. (ere was no significant difference(KWχ2 � 4.359, df� 4, p> 0.05) on the ratings ofrespondents’ attitudes based on (b) (“SVC is forforeign interests”), across the villages.

(c) Majority (n � 11; 73%) of the respondents in villagetwenty-six strongly agreed that the relationshipbetween SVC and the communities is bad, whereasa minor proportion (n � 1; 7%) of the respondentsagreed that the relationship between SVC and thecommunities is bad. (ere was no significant dif-ference (KWχ2 � 6.400, df� 4, p> 0.05) on the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Matsaivillage

Village 26 Village 27 Village 31 Village (2)Angus

% re

spon

dent

s

Study villages

Costs incurredNo costs incurred

Figure 3: Claims of wildlife-induced costs by local communitiesacross the villages.

0

10

Loss

of l

ife

Live

stock

depr

edat

ion

Crop

raid

ing

Wild

life-

lives

tock

dise

ase t

rans

miss

ion

Restr

icte

d ac

cess

to N

Rs

20

30

40

50

60

70

% re

spon

dent

s

Matsai villageVillage 26Village 27

Village 31Village (2) Angus

Figure 4: Nature of costs incurred by local communities across thevillages.

Scientifica 5

ratings of respondents’ attitudes across the villagesbased on (c) (“the relationship between SVC and thecommunities is bad”), across the villages, re-spectively (Figure 5).

3.5. Key Informants

3.5.1. Knowledge of Various Laws and Policy Frameworks5at Have Provision for Local Communities to Benefit fromPAs. Few (n � 4; 44%) of the key informants had someknowledge of various laws and policy frameworks that couldbe used to help locals derive conservation benefits from PAs.For instance, they had basic knowledge of the CAMPFIRE-based projects and the wildlife-based land reform policy. (emajority (n � 5; 56%) of the informants had a little idea of anypolicy-related instruments; the informants reported that theSVC is not conducting awareness campaigns so as to equiplocal communities with the basic fundamental conservationpolicy issues. Additionally, all the traditional leaders, villageselders, and ward councilors (n � 9; 100%) stated that theirknowledge of how the SVC community trust a community-based conservation intervention functions is poor.

3.5.2. Challenges Associated with Benefiting from SVC.All traditional leaders, villages elders, and ward councilors(n � 9; 100%) reported that the devolution of benefits isunclear, whereas the distribution channels are poorly de-fined. In addition, most of the interviewees, particularlytraditional leaders and village elders (n � 6; 67%), high-lighted that the SVC community trust is no longer functionalsince there are no follow-ups being made to ensure thatcommunities are still benefiting. Furthermore, councilors(n � 2; 22%) associate the current challenges with the failureof communities to know any policies addressing the rolesPAs should play in enhancing local communities well-being.Additionally, all the interviewees (n � 9; 100%) mentionedthat the aspect of resource nationalism through the in-digenization of the SVC has resulted in the individuallandowners in the SVC to be less concerned with meetinglocal communities aspirations and needs. (e informantsbelieve it is a challenge for their welfare to be addressed asthe individual landholders in the SVC are highlyantagonistic.

4. Discussion

(is study provided an opportunity for the first time toexamine the nature of costs and benefits of wildlife

conservation to local communities living in proximity toSVC. Our results showed that there are five major costs thatare being incurred in the study area. (e most prevalentcosts experienced across the villages were crop raiding andlivestock depredation. Costs accruing to local residents canbe attributed to security issues and the results are consistentwith those of Andersson et al. [16] who observed that en-croachment of wild animals into human settlements can beattributed to the state of a PAs security fence. Some sectionsof SVC’s perimeter fence are porous and run down; thus,communities situated at the edge often disproportionatelybear the cost of conservation. Crop raiding has impacted onthe local communities adversely: as men, women, andchildren spent most of their time guarding their fields, theyhave no opportunity to do income-generating activities.Drawing from insights by Mackenzie [28] wildlife-inducedcosts lead to financial hardships for some households andthis has broader implications for development. Since manyhouseholds make their living solely from subsistencefarming, losing crops to wild animals can have seriousconsequences for food security. (e high levels of wildlife-generated costs can be due to the limited number of gamescouts involved in the guarding and control of problemanimals and the absence of strategies to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. (ese results concur with those of Shibia[29] at Marsabit National Reserve, Kenya.

In addition, the rate of occurrence of wildlife-induceddamage can be due to the fact that the study sites are close tothe SVC boundary. Results agree with findings by Salernoet al. [30] and Mackenzie [28] who assert that the distance tothe PA-boundary is the primary predictor of conservationlosses experienced by local communities. Literature furtherreveals that costs incurred by edge communities reduce theirsupport for conservation and engender resentment andopposition to it [31, 32]; hence, biodiversity can suffer. Insupport of this, Gandiwa et al. [11] put forward that illicitwildlife-based activities have been reported to increase withan increase in (i) costs incurred by local communities fromwildlife conservation. Local communities are rationale be-ings and so reciprocity is contingent upon benefits received[33].(us, the wildlife-induced costs on communities livingnext to SVC are critical in shaping conservation attitudesand ultimately behaviour. Another factor contributing to theunprecedented levels of wildlife-induced costs could be themarked increase in populations of large herbivores andcarnivores, particularly the African elephant (Loxodontaafricana), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), and lions(Panthera leo). (is can be a major factor as wild gamenumbers in the SVC are anecdotal. (is phenomenon has

Table 1: Responses toward the nature of benefits derived from SVC across the villages.

Village (s) Bridge construction School construction Protein supplementation Borehole drilling Road maintenanceMatsai 3 1 2 0 026 0 3 2 1 027 1 4 0 1 131 2 3 0 0 0Village (2) Angus 1 5 0 0 2Total (n � 32) 7 (22%) 16 (50%) 4 (13%) 2 (6%) 3 (9%)

6 Scientifica

been also identified by Gandiwa et al. [11] in GonarezhouNational Park.

Furthermore, results on benefits show that a higherproportion of the respondents from the household surveyare disgruntled with the nature of benefits derived from theSVC. On a preliminary basis, the dissatisfaction expressed inregard with benefits derived can be due to the awarding ofbenefits at community level not household level. Otherstudies have demonstrated that local people hold favourableattitudes toward wildlife conservation when personal ben-efits are derived from PAs [34–37]. Songorwa [38] alsopostulate that communities dislike communal benefits;rather, they enjoy them at individual and household levels.(is is because most wildlife-induced costs (such as crop

raiding and livestock kills) are borne and felt at householdlevel rather than the entire community. Essentially, com-munity benefits undermine people’s short-term needs andcreate a loophole for free riders as they barely address thequestion of “who pays for, and who benefits from wildlife”[39]. Kideghesho [3] advances that benefits from conser-vation initiatives targeting the entire community rather thanthe individual households are condemned as they are termedpublic goods were the culprits and nonvictims get to enjoy.Also, given the definition of a conservancy, SVC satisfies thedefinitional parameters on paper but not on the ground; asproperty holders are highly antagonistic, this can be at-tributed to the poor flow of benefits to the communities.Depoliticizing conservation issues in the SVC is imperative

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Stronglyagree

Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree

% re

spon

dent

s

Matsai villageVillage 26Village 27

Village 31Village (2) Angus

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Stronglyagree

Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree

% re

spon

dent

s

Matsai villageVillage 26Village 27

Village 31Village (2) Angus

(b)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stronglyagree

Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree

% re

spon

dent

s

Matsai villageVillage 26Village 27

Village 31Village (2) Angus

(c)

Figure 5: Bar graphs (a)–(c) show percentages of respondents and their attitude ratings towards SVC using the Likert-type scale. Ratingscale is as follows: 1� strongly agree, 2� agree, 3�neutral, 4� disagree, and 5� strongly disagree. (a) SVC is more of a liability. (b) SVC is forforeign interests. (c) (e relationship between SVC and local communities is bad.

Scientifica 7

so as to ensure solidarity amongmultiple stakeholders whichis vital for integrated conservation and development. Also,failure of community leaders in particular and communitymembers in general to recognize laws and policy frameworksauthorizing them to profit from conservation outcomesfurther impedes the derivation of concrete benefits from theSVC.

Moreover, this study recorded that the majority of therespondents across the villages hold negative attitudes to-ward SVC. Negative attitudes were significantly morecommon across households that had been affected bywildlife problems. Shibia [29] and Gandiwa et al. [11] in-dicate that communities have a widespread dislike of andnegative attitudes towards most of the common problematicwild animals. Ayivor et al. [31] also argue that anything thatthreatens a source of livelihood in local people inevitablyerodes support for conservation and garners opposition.(erefore, since the majority of the studied house-holds experienced wildlife problems, this justifies the neg-ative conservation behaviour they display toward the SVC.Gillingham and Lee [40] suggest that perceived personalbenefits must outweigh perceived disadvantages to engenderpositive attitudes towards conservation. Furthermore, thenegative attitudes are due to the household economicconstraints induced by wildlife, as wildlife prey on livestockand the amount of time communities invest in protectingtheir crops and the livestock. Mackenzie [41] contends thatlocal communities perceived many aspects of wildlife con-servation negatively due to costs inflicted by crop raiders anddangerous wild animals around Kibale National Park,Uganda.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on our results, it can be concluded that costs outweighbenefits in local communities living adjacent to SVC andthat there are no formal benefit sharingmechanisms (BMSs),leading to local communities having negative attitudes to-wards SVC and wildlife conservation in general. It is rec-ommended that costs incurred by local communities can beoffset by a number of actions such as (i) putting in placeformalized BSMs to ensure a more consistent flow of benefitsto local people living on the edge. (is is critical as Jensen[42] argues that the economic man never performs withoutincentives (no benefits no conservation); (ii) deliberate af-firmative action where locals should be employed as a formof benefit of living close to a PA; (iii) there is need todocument the economic, social, and opportunity costs ofSVC on local communities thus creating inventories. (eseinventories can support the development of conservationstrategies to minimize the burden of SVC on edge com-munities while sustainably managing biodiversity; (iv)training local residents to promote tourism activities, thismay include training them to make arts and crafts that canbe sold to tourists. (is will earn income for the local peopleand improve their livelihoods thereby creating a morefavourable climate for conservation. (e SVC managementshould help to secure market for these products; and (v)holistically, SVC authorities need to have the capacity to

embark on regular outreach programmes to dialogue withcommunity members and to listen to their concerns. Regulardialogue will help induce pro-conservation attitudes, reduceacrimony, and curtail conflict situations.

Data Availability

(e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

(e authors wish to thank all those who helped in thecollection and preparation of data, namely, L. V. Mahofa,N. Nasasara, and A. Kamputi. (e contributions of all therespondents in this study are appreciated.

References

[1] G. S. M. Andrade and J. R. Rhodes, “Protected areas and localcommunities: an inevitable partnership toward successfulconservation strategies?,” Ecology and Society, vol. 17, no. 4,p. 14, 2012.

[2] J. C. Murombedzi, Pre-Colonial and Colonial ConservationPractices in Southern Africa and their Legacy, IUCN, Gland,Switzerland, 2003.

[3] J. R. Kideghesho, Constraints in Implementing the Benefit-Based Approaches as a Strategy for Conserving Wildlife inWestern Serengeti, Sokoine University Press, Morogoro,Tanzania, 2006.

[4] D. V. L. Macleod, “Parks or people? national parks and thecase of del este, dominican republic,” Progress in DevelopmentStudies, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 221–235, 2001.

[5] D. Roe, B. jones, I. Bond, and S. Bhatt, Local Action, GlobalAspirations: 5e Role of Community Conservation inAchieving International Goals for Environment and Devel-opment, Natural Resource Issues Series No. 4, InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development, London, UK,2006.

[6] K. B. Ghimire and M. P. Pimbert, Social Change and Con-servation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of NationalParks and Protected Areas, EarthScan, London, UK, 1997.

[7] S. Mombeshora, S. Mtisi, and J. Chaumba, Zimbabwe Map-ping Phase Report: Case Studies of Sangwe and MahenyeCommunal Areas in Chiredzi and Chipinge. SustainableLivelihoods in Southern Africa Mapping Paper, Institute ofDevelopment Studies, Brighton, UK, 2001.

[8] R. D. Baldus, A Practical Summary of Experiences after 5reeDecades of Community based Wildlife Conservation in Africa“What are the Lessons Learnt?”, Joint publication of FAO andCIC, Budapest, Hungary, 2009.

[9] K. A. Hill, “Zimbabwe’s Wildlife Utilization Programs:grassroots democracy or an extension of state power,” AfricanStudies Review, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 103–121, 1996.

[10] D. Brockington, R. Duffy, and J. Igoe, Nature Unbound:Conservation, Capitalism, and the Future of Protected Areas,EarthScan, London, UK, 2008.

[11] E. Gandiwa, I. M. A. Heitkonig, A. M. Lokhorst, H. H. T. Prins,and C. Leeuwis, “CAMPFIRE and human-wildlife conflicts in

8 Scientifica

local communities bordering northern gonarezhou nationalpark, Zimbabwe,” Journal of Ecology and Society, vol. 18, no. 4,p. 7, 2013.

[12] C. N. Mutanga, S. Vengesayi, N. Muboko, and E. Gandiwa,“Towards harmonious conservation relationships: a frame-work for understanding protected area staff-local communityrelationships in developing countries,” Journal for NatureConservation, vol. 25, pp. 8–16, 2015.

[13] R. Barnett and C. Patterson, Sport Hunting in the SouthernAfrican Development Community, (SADC) Region: AnOverview, Traffic East/Southern Africa, Johannesburg, SouthAfrica, 2005.

[14] A. B. Kelly, “(e crumbling fortress: nature, society and se-curity in waza national park, Northern Cameroon,” Antipode,vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 730–747, 2013.

[15] G. Holmes, What Role do Private Protected Areas have inConserving Global Biodiversity?, Sustainability Research In-stitute (SRI), Leeds, UK, 2013.

[16] J. A. Andersson, M. de Garine-Wichatitsky, D. H. Cumming,V. Dzingirai, and K. E. Giller, Trans-Frontier ConservationAreas: People Living on the Edge, EarthScan Publications,London, UK, 2013.

[17] J. Hutton, W. Adams, and J. Murombedzi, “Back to barriers?Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation,” Forum forDevelopment Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 341–370, 2005.

[18] A. N. Songorwa, “Community-based wildlife management(CWM) in Tanzania: are the communities interested?,”WorldDevelopment, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 2061–2079, 1999.

[19] L. M. Scherl, A. Wilson, R. Wild et al., Can Protected AreasContribute to Poverty Reduction? Opportunities and Limita-tions, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2004.

[20] N. Muboko and F. Murindagomo, “Wildlife control, accessand utilization: lessons from legislation, policy evolution andimplementation in Zimbabwe,” Journal for Nature Conser-vation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 206–211, 2014.

[21] G. Holmes, “Exploring the relationship between local supportand the success of protected areas,” Conservation and Society,vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 72–82, 2013.

[22] T. D. Allendorf, M. Aung, and M. Songer, “Using residentsperceptions to improve park–people relationships in chat thinwildlife sanctuary, Myanmar,” Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, vol. 99, pp. 36–43, 2012.

[23] C. N. Mutanga, N. Muboko, and E. Gandiwa, “Protected areastaff and local community viewpoints: a qualitative assess-ment of conservation relationships in Zimbabwe,” PLoS One,vol. 12, no. 5, Article ID e0177153, 2017.

[24] G. Homans, “Social behavior as exchange,” American Journalof Sociology, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 597–606, 1958.

[25] J. F. Shogren, J. Tschirhart, T. Anderson et al., “Why eco-nomics matters for endangered species protection,” Journal ofConservation Biology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1257–1261, 1999.

[26] P. Lindsey, R. Du Toit, A. Pole, and S. Romañach, Save ValleyConservancy: A Large Scale African Experiment in CooperativeWildlife Management, EarthScan, London, UK, 2009.

[27] S. Schensul, J. Schensul, and M. Lecompte, Essential Ethno-graphic Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Question-naires, Altamira Press, London, UK, 1999.

[28] C. A. Mackenzie, “Accruing benefit or loss from a protectedarea: location matters,” Journal of Ecological Economics,vol. 76, pp. 119–129, 2012.

[29] M. G. Shibia, “Determinants of attitudes and perceptions onresource use and management of marsabit national reserve,Kenya,” Journal of Human Ecology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 55–62,2010.

[30] J. Salerno, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. N. Grote, M. Ghiselli,and C. Packer, “Household livelihoods and conflict withwildlife in community-based conservation areas acrossnorthern Tanzania,”Oryx, vol. 50, no. 4, article 702e712, 2016.

[31] J. S. Ayivor, C. Gordon, and Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu, “Protectedarea management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: a casestudy of Digya National Park,” PARKS, vol. 19, no. 1,pp. 37–50, 2013.

[32] S. L. Snyman, “(e role of tourism employment in povertyreduction and community perceptions of conservation andtourism in southern Africa,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism,vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 395–416, 2012.

[33] J. Sobel, “Interdependent preferences and reciprocity,”Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 392–436,2005.

[34] W. F. De Boer and D. S. Baquete, “Natural resource use, cropdamage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of themaputo elephant reserve, Mozambique,” EnvironmentalConservation, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 208–218, 1998.

[35] M. E. Gadd, “Conservation outside of parks: attitudes of localpeople in Laikipia, Kenya,” Environmental Conservation,vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 50–63, 2005.

[36] J. N. Mehta and J. T. Heinen, “Does community-basedconservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? Anempirical study from Nepal,” Environmental Management,vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 165–177, 2001.

[37] N. U. Sekhar, “Local people’s attitudes towards conservationand wildlife tourism around sariska tiger reserve, India,”Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 69, no. 4,pp. 339–347, 2003.

[38] A. N. Songorwa, “Wildlife conservation for community de-velopment: experiences from selous conservation programmeand other community-based wildlife management pro-grammes in Tanzania,” Journal of Management Development,vol. 16, pp. 50–77, 2004.

[39] J. R. Kideghesho, Who Pays for Wildlife Conservation inTanzania and Who Benefits?, Sokoine University Press,Morogoro, Tanzania, 2008.

[40] S. Gillingham and P. C. Lee, “People and protected areas:a study of local perceptions of wildlife, crop-damage, conflictin an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania,”Oryx, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 310–325, 2003.

[41] C. A. Mackenzie, J. Salerno, J. Hartter et al., “Changingperceptions of protected area benefits and problems aroundKibale National Park, Uganda,” Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, vol. 200, pp. 217–228, 2017.

[42] M. C. Jensen, “Self-interest, altruism, incentives, and agencytheory,” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, vol. 7, no. 2,pp. 40–45, 1994.

Scientifica 9

Review ArticleMore than Just Story Telling: A Review of BiodiversityConservation and Utilisation from Precolonial toPostcolonial Zimbabwe

Tanyaradzwa Chigonda

Department of Physics, Geography and Environmental Science, Great Zimbabwe University, Masvingo, Zimbabwe

Correspondence should be addressed to Tanyaradzwa Chigonda; tanyachigonda@gmail.com

Received 4 April 2018; Revised 21 June 2018; Accepted 24 July 2018; Published 19 August 2018

Academic Editor: Edson Gandiwa

Copyright © 2018 Tanyaradzwa Chigonda. 'is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

Access to natural resources has changed over the years in Zimbabwe. At least three broad periods of biodiversity conservation,utilisation, and access can be identified in the country, namely, the precolonial, colonial, and postindependence periods. 'ispaper reviews the relationships between human livelihoods and biodiversity conservation in the rural areas of Zimbabwe duringthese periods and is informed by an extensive review of the relevant literature. A combination of historical narrative, thematic, andcontent analysis was used in analysing the various documents into meaningful information addressing the objective of the study.Traditional societies in precolonial Zimbabwe had access to abundant natural resources. However, access to these resources wasnot uncontrolled, but was limited by traditional beliefs, taboos, and customs enforced through community leadership structures.'e advent of colonialism in the late 19th century dispossessed indigenous African communities of natural resources throughcommand-type conservation legislation. At independence in 1980, the new majority government sought to redress the naturalresource ownership imbalances created during colonialism, culminating in some significant measure of devolution in naturalresource management to local communities in the late 1980s, though such devolution has been criticised for being incomplete. Anaccelerated land reform exercise since the year 2000 has adversely affected biodiversity conservation activities in the country,including the conservation-related livelihood benefits derived from protected areas. 'e review paper highlights the need fora more complete devolution of natural resource ownership andmanagement down to the grassroots levels in the communal areas,if social and ecological sustainability is to be fully realised in these areas. On the other hand, the disruption of conservationactivities in the country due to the ill-planned accelerated land reform exercise that has demarcated land for arable farming insome of the protected areas should be held in check as a matter of urgency.

1. Introduction

Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)defines biodiversity as:

'e variability among living organisms from allsources, including among others, terrestrial, marineand other aquatic ecosystems and the ecologicalcomplexes of which they are part; this includes diversitywithin species, between species and of ecosystems [1].

Since time immemorial, biodiversity has been central tohuman survival [2, 3]. In prehistoric times, people more

directly relied on the diversity of life in the wild for theprovision of daily survival needs such as food, medicines,and shelter among others. 'e advent of agriculture enabledhumans to domesticate wild animals and plants, necessi-tating a more sedentary lifestyle which, to some extent,reduced direct dependence on wild biological resources. 'eadvent of the industrial revolution further improved agri-cultural production through various technologies, therebyfurther reducing man’s direct dependence on the plant andanimal resources in the wild.

However, in spite of the advances in agriculture andtechnology highlighted above, people around the world still

HindawiScientificaVolume 2018, Article ID 6214318, 11 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6214318

rely on biological resources in the wild to meet their variousneeds [4]. 'is is particularly so in the Less EconomicallyDeveloped Countries (LEDCs) where hundreds of millionsof people, due to poverty, still depend on wild biodiversityfor food, income, medicines, and shelter among other needs.An estimated 1.6 billion people around the world depend onforest resources for livelihoods, the majority of whom arelocated in the tropical regions in LEDCs [5]. Increasingpopulations in the poor regions of the world amid highpoverty levels are further fuelling the demand for forestresources. It is, however, also important to note that, even inthe developed world, forest resources are still crucial inmeeting various societal needs. For example, wild plant andanimal species supply genes for the improvement of culti-vated and domesticated species for increasing yields, tol-erances, vigour, and disease and pest resistance [6, 7]. Inaddition, of the 520 new drugs approved between 1983 and1994, 39% were natural biological products or were derivedfrom them [6].

'e continued demand for natural living resources isincreasingly threatening these resources with over-exploitation and extinction, culminating in calls to conservethe world’s biological diversity so as to ensure their sus-tainable use. 'e need for the sustainable utilisation ofbiodiversity has resulted in the creation of various forms ofprotected areas across the globe. Linkages between bio-diversity conservation and livelihoods were recognised inthe 1970s and early 1980s culminating in the formulation ofthe World Conservation Strategy, which highlighted thefiniteness of natural resources and emphasised the need forensuring their sustainable use [8, 9]. Recognition of theimportance of biodiversity conservation and its linkages toglobal development issues was further underscored at the1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environmentwhere the inextricable link between biodiversity conserva-tion and human development was highlighted [10]. Morerecently, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the2030 Agenda for a better future for humanity free frompoverty and hunger highlight the importance of sustainablyutilising natural resources towards the attainment of thisambitious agenda.

'ere has, however, been some fierce debate amongresearchers on the nature and extent of the links betweenbiodiversity conservation and livelihoods. Scholars likeLockwood et al. [11] note that protected areas are detri-mental to livelihoods through denying communities accessto traditionally used resources. Other scholars [12, 13]highlight the importance of protected areas in sustaining theflow of various ecosystem services upon which humansdepend for survival. Other commentators note that theimpact of biodiversity conservation on local livelihoodsdepends on the contexts under which the protected areas areestablished and managed [14, 15].

Access to, and use of, natural resources has changed overthe years in Zimbabwe. At least three broad periods of naturalresource conservation and utilisation can be identified in thecountry, namely, the precolonial period, the colonial period,and the postindependence period [16, 17]. 'e post-independence period can, however, more conveniently be

discussed as two separate periods which are the first twodecades after independence (1980–2000) and the third decadestarting in 2000. While these periods represent the country’spolitical epochs, they also strongly, and differently, influencednatural resource governance andmanagement structures.'eprecolonial epoch was based on the traditional leadership andtheir invisible fences; the colonial period involved an op-pressive white-supremacist system, while the postcolonialepoch ushered in populist governance based on majority rule.'is paper reviews the relationship between local livelihoodsand natural resource conservation (particularly biodiversity)in the rural areas of Zimbabwe during these three periods.

Perhaps an important question to ask is why botherabout the history and evolution of biodiversity conservationin relation to rural livelihoods in Zimbabwe. It is generallybelieved that a peep into the past is likely to enhance ourunderstanding of current and possible future events, phe-nomena, and occurrences [18]. 'is thinking is more clearlyarticulated by Osakwe [19] who contends that, “To be able toappreciate fully the present, we must know something of thepast.”

'e aforementioned point makes a lot of sense partic-ularly if one considers that biodiversity conservation ap-proaches are constantly changing and evolving in order toestablish their relevance at any given time in history. Ahistorical perspective will therefore show how things havebeen done in the past, the reasons for such actions, and theresultant consequences. 'is may help in avoiding pastmistakes, thereby guiding current (and future) courses ofaction towards better outcomes. 'e objective of the study isto assess the linkage between biodiversity conservation andhuman livelihoods in the rural areas of Zimbabwe andadopts a historical perspective covering the precolonial,colonial, and postcolonial time periods. While previousauthors have written on the history of biodiversity con-servation and rural livelihoods in Zimbabwe, this particularresearch adopts a more-than-just-story-telling perspectiveand attempts to add more value to these previous researchesby coming up with policy implications on the biodiversityconservation livelihood nexus in Zimbabwe.

2. Materials and Methods

'is review paper is informed by an extensive documen-tary review of literature on biodiversity conservation inZimbabwe in relation to rural livelihoods using a historicalperspective. 'e documentary review, which included rel-evant policies, laws, and programmes, involved careful se-lection of documents so as to give a balanced and accurateview regarding the evolution of biodiversity conservation inZimbabwe from the precolonial, colonial, to the postcolonialperiods and the impacts on biodiversity-dependent rurallivelihoods. Government ministries and departments andorganisations involved with conservation-livelihood activi-ties in the country were among the various organisationsthat were approached for the collection of documentaryinformation.

'e Internet was also very crucial in accessing relevantpublished and unpublished secondary documents including

2 Scientifica

peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and academic thesesusing academic literature search engines such as GoogleScholar, Scopus, and Science Direct among others [20].Various search phrases were used in searching for articlesincluding “biodiversity conservation and utilisation inZimbabwe,” “biodiversity conservation and livelihoods inZimbabwe,” “biodiversity conservation policy in Zimbabwe,”“evolution of biodiversity conservation in Zimbabwe,” and“natural resource access and use in Zimbabwe.” Preliminaryselection of an article for consideration was guided by thearticle’s topic, abstract, and keywords [20, 21]. 'is was thenfollowed by an in-depth reading of all initially selected articlesso as to assess their relevance as information sources for thestudy. A total of 46 relevant documents were finally selectedfor the review process.

A combination of historical narrative, thematic, andcontent analysis was employed in reviewing the docu-mentary sources of information gathered. 'is enabled thesorting of the large volumes of documentary data into fo-cused and meaningful information useful in addressing theobjective of the research. 'e three historical periods(precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial) naturally becamethe themes into which gathered documentary data weresorted and analysed, guided by the research objective.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Biodiversity Conservation and Use in PrecolonialZimbabwe: Pre-1890. 'e people who settled in what is nowZimbabwe came into the area in the later Iron Age aroundAD 1000 [2]. It is estimated that the area now calledZimbabwe contained a population of between 600,000 and700,000 people before colonialism [16]. Bouchier’s de-scription of the area as “a wilderness of bush and nativetimber, teeming with game of every variety which foundample feeding ground in the rich valleys and grasslands thatabound in all parts of the country,” indicates that the peoplehad access to abundant natural resources [2]. However,access to these resources was not uncontrolled but waslimited by some traditional beliefs, taboos, and customs[2, 17, 22, 23]. For example, some sites were believed to behosts to some spiritual forces, and it was taboo to visit thesesacred sites [23, 24]. Such sites would include mountains andforests and visiting, hunting, collection of fruits, firewood,and other natural products was prohibited. It was believedthat anyone who visited such sites would temporarily getlost, disappear forever, or become insane [24]. While thesacredness of sites is highly debatable, it is, however, clearthat such myths helped protect the natural environment assome areas remained intact nature conservation areas.

Traditional societies in precolonial Zimbabwe alsoenforced wildlife conservation by discouraging in-discriminate killing of animals and birds. It was believed thatwanton killing of wildlife was punishable by the spirits andcontrol mechanisms were found in traditional taboos, to-tems, and customs [22, 23]. For example, totemism was oneof the observed taboos where one was not allowed to eat theirtotem animal [25]. Breaking such prohibitions was believedto invite illness or the loss of teeth by the offender [24].

Totemism was a very effective wildlife conservation measureagainst extinction because different groups of people wouldnow eat different kinds of animals thereby avoiding theoverexploitation of certain preferred species.'ere were alsotaboos forbidding the killing of young animals and femalesin gestation, while in some parts of the country, harvesting ofpremature edible caterpillars was also taboo [2]. 'e killingof young animals, harvesting of premature edible insects,and the exploitation of resources before certain periods ofthe year was believed to result in loss of eyesight for theoffender [2].

'ere were also taboos for protecting rare or endangeredanimal species under immediate threat from extinction suchas the python, the pangolin, and certain rare fish species [2].For example, society believed that if one killed a python, rainwould not fall, and therefore it became a protected species askilling it was now associated with the occurrence of drought[24]. 'e killing of such rare species could only be done withthe approval of the chief [2].

'ere were also some traditional taboos restricting thecutting and using of certain types of vegetation. For example,indigenous fruit trees such as Muzhanje (vapaka kirkiana),Mutamba (Strychnos species), Mutohwe (Azanza garkaena),and Munhengeni (ximena), among others could not be usedas firewood [22, 23]. As a way of further discouraging peoplefrom using these trees as firewood, the trees were said not toburn properly, did not last in the fire, and produced a lot ofchocking smoke [24]. Such explanations were merely meantto protect these trees so as to ensure a continuous supply offruit that were an important part of the people’s diet [25].Some trees such as Muhacha (Parinari curatellifolia) werenutritionally and culturally significant [22, 23]. 'e fruit ofthe tree was important for both animals and humans es-pecially during droughts while rain-making ceremonieswere also performed under it, and thus cutting it was strictlyforbidden [24].

'e above and other traditional taboos and customsenabled the people in precolonial Zimbabwe to live inharmony with nature by maintaining a healthy balancebetween them and their environment.'ese people were notonly close to but part of nature, acknowledging that theirvery existence depended on it [2]. For this reason, no singlemajor environmental challenge has been reported by anyresearcher to date in Zimbabwe during this period.

3.2. Biodiversity Conservation and Use in the Colonial Period:1890–1980. 'e advent of colonialism in the last decade ofthe 19th century in Zimbabwe severely disrupted the har-mony and close ties that had existed between the indigenouspeople and nature [2]. 'e white colonialists saw the in-digenous populations as “a bunch of ignoramuses” whofeared nature and thus failed to tame it for their benefit [26].

'e newly established colonial administration soon in-troduced protective and command type natural resource andwildlife conservation legislation in order to preserve onceplentiful wildlife populations which had been severelydecimated by the great rinderpest epidemic of 1896-1897combined with exploitation by slave traders, hunter

Scientifica 3

explorers, prospectors, and adventurers [27, 28]. For ex-ample, the 1893 Game Law Amendment Ordinance made itillegal to sell, barter, or hawk game without a licence [2, 28].Different licences were required for killing, catching, pur-suing, hunting, or shooting game with each licence costingthree pounds [2]. What this meant is that the local peoplecould no longer hunt as in the past as they could not affordthe high licence charges.

'e Game Law Amendment Ordinance was replaced bythe 1929 Game and Fish Preservation Act which gave thegovernor of colonial Zimbabwe sweeping powers to controlthe exploitation of wildlife [27].'e law also provided for theestablishment of Wankie Game Reserve (now HwangeNational Park), Vitoria Falls Reserve, Matobo (now Mato-posi) National Park, and Urungwe (now Hurungwe) GameReserve which set the foundation for the current system ofprotected areas in the country that now covers approxi-mately 12% of the country’s total land area [17, 27, 28].Hunting for game was banned in the newly created protectedareas and indigenous populations living adjacent to theseareas could no longer hunt for sustenance as hunting becamepoaching [2]. 'e Game and Fish Preservation Act wasamended in 1938 in tune with the 1933 InternationalConvention for the Protection of the Fauna and Flora ofAfrica which made additional provisions to control trade inwildlife products and the movement of trophies [27].

While the above laws resulted in the recovery of wildlifepopulations, such population increases also threatenedhuman settlement and commercial cattle ranching bycompeting for grazing and harbouring pests and diseases[27, 28]. Some cattle farmers declared that they could notcontinue “farming in a zoo” [29]. Consequently, large-scalehunting to eradicate large mammals for the control of thespread of tsetse fly and diseases was introduced in 1920 andcontinued through the 1960s [27, 28]. Approximately 680000 wild animals were killed between 1919 and 1960 in thisexercise [17].

Perhaps the most influential land use planning andadministrative intervention that disposed and alienatedindigenous people in colonial Zimbabwe from the naturalresources they had always enjoyed was the Land Appor-tionment Act of 1930 [30]. 'e Act divided all the land intoEuropean areas, African native reserves, and other areas.'egradual implementation of the Land Apportionment Acteventually led to the emergence of a landholding structurewhere only 4,800 large-scale white commercial farmersoccupied 11.2 million hectares of land while one millioncommunal-area families occupied only 16.3 million hectares[2]. In addition, 74% of the native reserves or communallands were located in the marginal agricultural areas whilethe white commercial farmers were mainly allocated land inthe prime agricultural areas [2].

Legislative controls were also established so as to governuse of natural resources in the native reserves or communalareas. 'e 1928 Native Reserves Forest Produce Act re-stricted access to forest products for native reserve residentsto own use only [23]. 'e sale of forest products was onlyallowed through the issuing of a permit. Movement of forestproducts between communal lands was also restricted [31].

Native reserve residents were also prohibited fromexploiting protected forest areas within their lands [22, 31].'e Native Reserves Forest Produce Act also prohibitedAfricans from exploiting reserved tree species in their lands[31]. In addition, the Act prohibited natives from usingforests within their lands where commercial licences hadbeen granted to concessionaires [16, 22]. 'e Native Re-serves Forest Produce Act thus made it very difficult, if notimpossible, for indigenous Africans to use woodland re-sources in the reserves. It is important to note that most ofthe restricted tree species included important fruit and agro-forestry species [16]. While a strict regulatory framework fornatural resource use was imposed on the African populationthrough the Native Reserves Forest Produce Act, voluntaryregulation was encouraged in the white farming areas mainlythrough the Forest Act of 1948 [22, 23, 31]. 'ese acts re-flected the prevailing ideology of racially determined leg-islative controls [31].

'e period 1960 to 1980 witnessed some major changesin the perception of wildlife in colonial Zimbabwe [27]. Forexample, there was a growing international interest inwildlife as a source of protein in Africa which contrastedsharply with colonial policies of wasteful slaughter of largenumbers of wildlife on cattle ranges and in tsetse controloperations [27]. On the contrary, taking advantage of therising international interest in African wildlife and a risingdemand for wildlife products and tourism, the private sectorincreasingly demanded control over wildlife [27, 32]. Suchmounting tensions over wildlife resulted in the reexami-nation of wildlife management and conservation in thecountry culminating in the development and promulgationof the Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975 which devolved re-sponsibility for wildlife to the private landowner[17, 27, 33, 34]. According to [35], the granting of appro-priate authority to the private sector was also intended tosolve three other pressing concerns in the wildlife sector.First, there was a realisation that wildlife populations withinsome protected areas were increasingly becoming isolated asmigration routes had been severed. Second, the transfer ofwildlife responsibility would ease pressure on dwindlingbudgets for wildlife management. 'ird, wildlife was be-coming more and more subject to personal interests andpower struggles in the government and involving the privatesector would help ease such tensions [35].

'e Parks and Wildlife Act, however, did not conferownership of wildlife on landowners. 'e predominant legalcode in southern Africa is Roman Dutch Law where the legalstatus of wildlife is res nullius, meaning that wildlife belongsto no one but the state [27, 33]. Once an animal crossed thefence of a private landowner, it immediately ceased to betheirs.'e Act therefore only gave incentives for landownersto manage and benefit from wildlife resources on their lands[27].

'e Parks and Wildlife Act laid the foundation for theinitial and subsequent development of the wildlife industryin Zimbabwe. According to Bond and Cumming [27], it wasnot until some wildlife ranches diversified into commercialsafari hunting that wildlife became a viable alternative tobeef production.

4 Scientifica

Unfortunately, the appropriate authority for managingand utilising wildlife conferred to private landownersthrough the Parks and Wildlife Act was not extended tothe communal areas [16, 27]. Instead, the Act allowed for thedevolution of appropriate authority for wildlife in thecommunal lands to a designated officer, the Secretary forInternal Affairs responsible for administering communallands, who delegated it to the District Commissioners [16].'is meant that indigenous Africans in the communal landsremained with no access to natural resources in their landsin stark contrast to the white private landowners who couldnow freely utilise wildlife resources on their lands.

Perhaps, the only major attempt towards allowing in-digenous Africans in the communal lands to use and benefitfrom natural resources during colonialism was the WildlifeIndustries New Development for All (WINDFALL) projectin the late 1970s [27, 34]. 'e primary objective ofWINDFALL was to model the success registered in com-mercial wildlife ranching to communal areas and to reducehuman-wildlife conflicts that were becoming common [17].Under WINDFALL, meat was returned to surroundingvillages from elephant culling. 'e experimental projectfailed mainly because of local community marginalisation,ambiguity, negative perceptions, and retention of revenue bygovernment agencies including the Department of NationalParks and Wildlife Management (DNPWLM) and RuralDistrict Councils (RDCs) [17, 27].

'e colonial period in Zimbabwe thus resulted in the lossof access to natural resources by indigenous African com-munities who had depended on these for centuries for theirsustenance. 'ese resources were now under the control ofwhite settlers through “accumulation by displacement.”Natural resources in the white-owned areas were largelyunderutilised, while overcrowding in the communal areas,coupled with high poverty levels and taxation, resulted inoverexploitation of resources in spite of the various resourceaccess and use restrictions that were imposed. Colonialismalso disrupted the sustainable traditional natural resourcemanagement and utilisation institutions that the indigenousAfricans had developed over a long period of time. Addi-tionally, settler actions such as the decimation of largenumbers of wild animals considered as pests and theopening up of large tracts of land for agriculture, mining,and settlement set the foundation for the socioeconomic andecological challenges the country is facing today.

3.3. Biodiversity Conservation and Use after Independence:1980–Present. 'is section explores natural resource accessand use after independence in Zimbabwe. In particular, itlooks at wildlife conservation and use on private andcommunal lands and the impact of the fast-track land re-form on biodiversity conservation and livelihoods.

3.3.1. Wildlife Conservation and Use on Private Lands.'e passing of the Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975, whichdevolved appropriate authority over wildlife to landowners,laid the foundation for private wildlife conservation inZimbabwe. While the government remains responsible for

wildlife within the Parks and Wildlife Estate, wildlife con-servation has increasingly been transferred to the privatesector since the 1970s through policies that encourage thedevolution of authority and responsibility for wildlife to thelandholder, coupled with the definition of wildlife as aneconomic resource [35].

'ough the roots of private wildlife ranching in Zim-babwe can be traced back to the 1970s, its real growth andestablishment was experienced after independence partic-ularly in the 1980s up to the late 1990s. While security oftenure, which remained guaranteed after independencethrough the Lancaster House Agreement, was a necessarycondition for the management of wildlife by farms in thelarge-scale commercial farming sector, it was not a sufficientfactor for the successful establishment of the wildlife in-dustry [27]. Changing macroeconomic conditions and thegrowth in live game sales and tourism in the 1990s improvedthe incentive structure for wildlife which saw many farmsincreasingly allocating resources to the management ofwildlife [27, 36]. A decline in beef prices and severe droughtsin the early 1990s, coupled with the collapse of theZimbabwean dollar and a broader shift towards export-oriented agriculture, also greatly increased the popularityof game ranching [36].

In addition, a research programme in the 1980s and1990s coordinated by the WWF on multispecies systems ofanimal production across the country revealed highlyfavourable comparisons of the wildlife industry’s prospectswith those of beef production [33, 36, 37]. 'e average fi-nancial return on investment of wildlife enterprises was 10%for Natural Regions III and IV while it exceeded 10% forNatural Region V [27, 33]. In contrast, the average return oninvestment to cattle was below 5% in all natural regionsagainst a 10% level considered profitable by the survey [27].'e significant changes in land use, where ranchers des-tocked cattle in favour of wildlife during the period 1990 to2000, fully substantiated the results of the WWF survey[27, 37, 38]. A further indicator of the relative viability ofwildlife over livestock production systems was the formationof wildlife conservancies such as the Save Valley, Bubiana,and Chiredzi River [36, 37]. By 1994, wildlife ranching wasone of the fastest growing new uses of commercial farmlandin Zimbabwe, emerging into a robust and diversified wildlifesector by 1997 [27, 33, 39].

'e rapid growth and establishment of the privateconservation sector, particularly after independence, was animportant development for the Parks and Wildlife De-partment for both economic and political reasons [35]. Asshown earlier, it became increasingly clear in the 1980s thatconservation budgets were no longer able to keep pace withspiralling conservation costs and hence, wildlife conserva-tion on private lands presented itself as an effective cost-saving management plan. In addition, the giving away ofsome control over wildlife to private individuals and groupswas a political move by the Parks Department to prevent thegrowing corrupt use of wildlife by certain elements in theDepartment, Ministry of Environment and Tourism and ingovernment [35]. So, prior to 2000, there were 669 gamefarms and conservancies registered with the Wildlife

Scientifica 5

Producers Association of Zimbabwe with a combined area of2.5 million hectares and constituting at least 20% of thecountry’s commercial farmland (about 5% of the country)[39].

'e development of private conservancies and gameranching in the large-scale commercial farming sector was,however, criticised for perpetuating the existing unequaldistribution of land and economic power [33, 35, 36]. Po-litical and historical factors saw white commercial farmersbecoming the main beneficiaries of the development of theconservancies and game ranches due to colonial policieswhich reserved the best land for European Areas [35].Additionally, there was no regulatory framework for therapidly growing conservancies, and thus, they were viewedas attempts by white commercial farmers to hide and pri-vatise a national resource [36]. Due to the above and otherreasons, some elements in government treated the transfer ofappropriate authority over wildlife to private landownerswith caution.

'e expiry of the Lancaster House Agreement in 1990,and the subsequent enactment of the Land Acquisition Actin 1992, presented a major threat to wildlife ranches andconservancies as government could now easily and com-pulsorily acquire any land for resettlement [40]. In 1995, thethen Minister of Environment and Tourism stated thatconservancies had to be closely monitored in order toprevent them from threatening food security as they weredeveloping in areas suitable for both commercial and sub-sistence crop production [35, 36]. 'is was followed in thesame year by a similar statement from the then DeputyMinister of Lands andWater Resources pledging to curb theexpansion of game farming as it threatened to swallow upthe country’s crop lands [35].

In response to the growing threat to their survival, gameranchers attempted various survival strategies. Recognisingthat failure to indigenise would ultimately threaten theirlong-term survival, the white commercial wildlife rancherstried to attract black entrepreneurs into their ventures [35].In a move to gain some political and social legitimacy, othersresponded with some “community trust” and “neighbouroutreach schemes” through activities such as, inter alia,borehole drilling, school fee handouts, and access to sacredareas for the neighbouring communities [36]. However, inspite of suchmoves, wildlife continued to be perceived by thewider Zimbabwean society as a white-controlled area of theeconomy [33, 35, 36]. 'e neighbour outreach schemes werecriticised as cosmetic attempts to maintain the status quo oras “strategic tokenism” for attracting donor funding [36].

So, prior to the fast-track land reform programme in2000, game farms and conservancies as a conservationstrategy were viewed by many in government as a hangoverfrom the colonial period perpetuating a racially unequaldistribution of land and resources. Despite the above con-troversies surrounding private wildlife ranching in Zim-babwe, it is clear that a switch to wildlife farming proved tobe quite successful both as a profitable form of land use andas a tool for the effective conservation of wildlife resources inthe country. 'e neighbour outreach schemes by privateconservancies have also relatively contributed to livelihood

enhancement for communities bordering these protectedareas.

3.3.2. Wildlife Conservation and Use in the CommunalFarming Sector: CAMPFIRE. In parallel with the politicallycontroversial development of game ranching on large-scalecommercial farms, there have been attempts by the state,since colonial times, to disburse wildlife revenue and devolveauthority to local communities in the communal areas[17, 34, 36, 41].'is eventually culminated in the nowworld-renowned CAMPFIRE programme explored in this section.

'e concept of CAMPFIRE has its origins in the 1970swithWINDFALL that tried to emulate successes with the useof wildlife on large-scale commercial farms [31, 41, 42].However, WINDFALL failed as it did not propose newtenure arrangements regarding the wildlife resources andshared the financial revenues from safari hunting withdistrict authorities and not their constituent village-levelcommunities [34]. It was a top-down programme withoutthe participation of the people in areas with wildlife, with alldecisions coming from government agencies [34, 43, 44].CAMPFIRE was born out of the Sebungwe regional plan-ning exercise in the early 1980s after a realisation that thedevelopment of the Sebungwe area (Binga, Gokwe andKariba Districts) would have to be based on wildlife uti-lisation as much of the region is not suitable for arableagriculture [44].

'e legal mechanism through which CAMPFIRE nowoperates was the granting of appropriate authority to DistrictCouncils through the amendment of the Parks and WildlifeAct (1975) in 1982 [34, 41, 45, 46]. 'is allows revenuesderived from wildlife, through safari operators, huntingconcessions, and trophy fees, to be accrued by the councilrather than central treasury, which in turn increases in-centives for councils to invest in wildlife-based revenue-earning activities. 'e gross wildlife revenue received bydistrict councils is allocated to wildlife management activ-ities, district council levies, and wildlife producer wards [45].'e revenue devolved to subdistrict levels, mostly to wards,provides the financial incentive for individuals and house-holds to participate in the common management of wildlife[16, 42, 45]. It was hoped that devolution of appropriateauthority would eventually be extended to wards and finallyvillages, but there are no legal mechanisms to allow this asyet [35].

'e CAMPFIRE programme has realised several re-markable achievements since its inception in 1989. Eco-nomically, total annual income from safari huntingincreased rapidly from US$350 000 in 1989 to US$2 millionin 2001 [47]. During the same period, CAMPFIRE areasearned a total of US$20.3 million [38, 41, 47]. 'rough themultiplier effects, this earned the country over US$100million [47]. A significant improvement in marketing anda steady increase in hunting quotas accounted for the im-pressive growth in CAMPFIRE revenue during this period[42, 47].

Another important indicator of the economic success ofCAMPFIRE has been the gross annual benefit for

6 Scientifica

communities in CAMPFIRE areas [27, 42]. 'is increasedsteadily from an all-time low of 38% in 1990 up to 59% in1995 with revenue retained by councils declining remarkably[47]. However, the revenue disbursed to communitiessuddenly went down to less than 50% after 1996, eventuallygetting back to the 1990 level of 38% by 2001, with councilsnow retaining around 40% of CAMPFIRE revenue therebyadversely reducing benefits to the local communities [47]. Inspite of the decreasing trends, the revenue that was disbursedto communities from councils was instrumental in fundingvarious community development projects including thebuilding of schools and clinics, the purchasing of grindingmills, and the sinking of boreholes among other develop-ment activities. Some of the revenue disbursed to com-munities was paid out as household dividends though, andcompared to agricultural production, the cash benefits fromwildlife in most wards were merely supplementary to cropand livestock production [16]. Only a few wards with lowhuman population densities and endowed with higherwildlife populations produce significant annual householdcash dividends [27, 48].

'e CAMPFIRE programme has also immensely con-tributed to the conservation of biodiversity in Zimbabwe[42, 48, 49]. CAMPFIRE protects an area of land roughlyequivalent in size to Zimbabwe’s Parks and Wildlife Estate[47]. According to Duffy [35], when CAMPFIRE protectedareas and ranches under wildlife are added to the Parks andWildlife Estate, the area of land under wildlife comes up to33%. 'is is apparently a major indicator of the successfulimpact of the CAMPFIRE programme to biodiversityconservation in Zimbabwe.

Despite its achievements, CAMPFIRE has also beencriticised on a number of areas. 'e main criticism ofCAMPFIRE has been its failure to devolve appropriateauthority to subdistrict levels. 'e CAMPFIRE concept wasfounded on the principles embodied in the 1975 Parks andWildlife Act that had devolved authority over wildlife tolarge-scale freehold commercial farmers [38, 47]. 'roughthe Act, freehold farmers and ranchers were transformedinto proprietary units for wildlife with the ability to makesignificant management decisions including the right tohunt, to allow someone else to hunt, to buy and sell game, tocarry out trophy hunting, and to accrue all benefits derivedfrom these activities [35, 47]. Similarly, CAMPFIREfounding documents aimed at an institutional change thatwould grant residents in communal areas territorial rightsover defined tracts of land; custody and responsibility overnatural resources; and the right to benefit directly from theexploitation of the natural resources on their land [38, 46].CAMPFIREwas thus originally intended to be a rights-basedapproach that would give communal-area residents signif-icant de jure control over their land and natural resources[47, 50] through, as [46] puts it, natural resource co-operatives or village companies.

However, the implementation of CAMPFIRE sawa number of compromises being made, with appropriateauthority for the formal control over wildlife eventually beingdevolved to RDCs rather than to subdistrict local commu-nities as had originally been envisaged [17, 38, 41, 51, 52].

'ere were no legal mechanisms to enable the devolution ofappropriate authority to wards and villages as the RDC is thelowest recognisable legal entity [35, 50]. 'e institutionalcontext of the country’s communal lands is such that there areno community level governance institutions with rights overa defined area of land [38, 52]. 'e granting of appropriateauthority to RDCs gives them, rather than local communities,the power to sign contracts with hunters and to accrue all thegenerated income. CAMPFIRE Revenue Guidelines stipulatethat the RDC cannot keep more than 15% of the revenue tocover their overheads; RDCs may receive a maximum of 26%of revenue to be spent on wildlife management activities suchas law enforcement and monitoring; and the CAMPFIREAssociation may receive 4% of gross revenue as a levy fromcouncils, leaving producer communities with only 55% ofgross revenue [35, 47]. 'is has degraded the local incentivefor investing in wildlife production and conservation amongcommunal area residents considering the huge opportunitycosts they incur, including damage to crops by wild animals,and has emerged as the chief critique of CAMPFIRE [38, 53].'e ultimate goal of CAMPFIRE is for producer communitiesto receive 80% of all the revenue generated with the RDCsretaining not more than 20% [35], and this has not beenrealised as yet.

'e recentralisation of powers and revenue to the RDClevel was also partly as a result of the Economic StructuralAdjustment Programme (ESAP) which resulted in budgetcuts for all government departments [35]. Diminishingbudget allocations from central government resulted inRDCs increasingly becoming unwilling to devolve appro-priate authority for wildlife to producer communities [35].'e granting of appropriate authority over wildlife to RDCsinstead of producer communities therefore representsa major structural and implementational shortfall within theCAMPFIRE concept and is indicative of the resistance ofpolitical and economic elites to give up access and benefitsthat accrue from the wildlife resources [17, 54, 55]. Becauseof limited rights to land and natural resources, communitieshave little discretion to determine actual resource use andonly have rights to part of the revenue generated from re-source exploitation by external interests and often cannotparticipate in that exploitation themselves [34]. Such naturalresource decentralisation reforms can best be described as“charades” due to a lack of substantive depth of institutionalreform on the ground to match the rhetoric of decentral-isation, devolution, and local empowerment [38, 56–58].'ese limitations are recognised by some new regionalinitiatives such as recent tourism joint venture models beingdeveloped in South Africa that are based on enablingcommunities to gain equity at all levels of the game lodgetourism industry on the basis of secure rights to land onwhich game lodges are developed [34]. In another regionalexample, CBNRM in Botswana has witnessed a morecomplete devolution of the benefits from wildlife to com-munity trusts which are recognised legal entities therebygiving communities greater leverage over the use of re-sources and the benefits derived from such use [50, 59, 60].Namibia has also sought to extend authority over wildlife tocommunal lands by passing some legislative reforms in 1996

Scientifica 7

which enabled communities to form their own self-defined“conservancies” with direct proprietorship over wildlife [38].

However, the communities in which CAMPFIRE is takingplace are by no means homogenous. One of the challenges tothe CAMPFIRE programme has been the emergence of someelites within the local communities participating in CAMP-FIRE, desiring to appropriate to themselves some of the fi-nancial and other benefits accruing to the communities. Forexample, chairpersons and committee members of localCAMPFIRE committees have reportedly abused accruedCAMPFIRE revenues in some areas while, in other cases, thetraditional leadership has reportedly taken over control ofa supposedly community project [61, 62]. In other cases, still,community political fault lines have not spared CAMPFIREprojects [60]. Such internal power struggles within CAMP-FIRE participating communities have been highlighted asa red flag by opponents of complete devolution, who havetaken such occurrences as important indications that sub-district governance structures are not effective.

3.3.3. 5e Accelerated Land Reform and Its Impact on Bio-diversity Conservation and Use. Zimbabwe has undergonesignificant and far-reaching political, economic, ecological,and social upheavals since adopting the accelerated landreform exercise in 2000, which has seen the countrydescending into a state of protracted crisis [21, 62]. 'is hasseen its relatively strong economy reduced to being one ofthe weakest in the region, with a once reasonably well-functioning bureaucracy weakened [62–64]. In light of theabove, the fast-track land reform programme has broughtwith it adverse impacts on biodiversity conservation activ-ities in the country [21, 65], and this section shall con-centrate on the impacts of the accelerated land reformexercise on private conservancies and game ranches andCAMPFIRE areas.

As a recap, it is important to note that before the fast-track land reform programme in 2000, private wildlifeconservation had become well established in Zimbabwe.However, as shown earlier, the state viewed the wildlifesector with suspicion and argued that wildlife production,which requires large blocks of contiguous land, was in-compatible with land reform and tended to perpetuatecolonial land imbalances.With the coming of the acceleratedland reform in 2000, the private wildlife sector was certainlynot spared. Records indicate that 655 game farms andconservancies were acquired (wholly or partially) forresettlement during the fast-track land reform period [39].Some of the acquired game ranches and conservanciescontinued with wildlife activities while others were partiallyor wholly converted into agricultural land [27, 39]. Forexample, Bubiana Conservancy, measuring 84,803 ha cededmore than 17,000 ha for the AI farming model, while BubyeRiver Conservancy ceded 5,600 ha also for AI resettlement[39]. 'e Save Valley Conservancy in Chiredzi, one of thelargest private conservancies in the world, also lost some ofits area to resettlement. 'is was in line with StatutoryInstrument 288 of 2000 which set out maximum permissiblefarm sizes per agroecological region [66].

While there is generally a dearth of information on thecurrent status of wildlife on the game farms and conser-vancies, unconfirmed reports indicate that species pop-ulations declined by between 30% and 80%, mainly asa result of inadequate supplementary provisions such aswater and feeds and illegal off-take and inadequate securityon those acquired farms and conservancies where thewildlife land use system was maintained [39]. 'e UNDPestimates that about 40% of wildlife was lost as a result ofchange from wildlife management to agriculture [39].Hunting and cutting down of trees by the new farmers so asto open up virgin lands for agriculture, reduce competitionfor grazing from wildlife, and protect livestock from pre-dation were some of the main reasons for the decline inwildlife. 'e elimination of wildlife by the new settlers wasalso a way of protesting against the historical loss of landwhere every black African was stereotyped as a potentialpoacher and every white man a land robber, a concept thathas been termed “ecoretribution” [65].

'e fast-track land reform process has also had severalimportant impacts on CAMPFIRE. Firstly, the effectivedestruction of institutions for the control of land and naturalresources in the large-scale commercial farming sector hasalso beenmirrored in the communal farming sector, severelyundermining some of the evolving institutions for thecontrol andmanagement of wildlife and wildlife habitat [27].In addition, the demand for land created by dein-dustrialisation and movement of labourers off large-scalecommercial farms has further exacerbated the situation [27].Resultantly, wildlife habitat is now under greater pressurethan that at any time since the start of CAMPFIRE in the late1980s [27]. Secondly, the fast-track land reform processresulted in a shift in attention towards the large-scalecommercial farming sector. 'is has reduced the atten-tion that is needed to resolve the ongoing land and naturalresource problems within the communal areas of Zimbabwe[27].

Perhaps one of the greatest impacts on CAMPFIRE, of thefast-track land reform exercise and the ensuing political andeconomic turmoil, is related to the decline in tourist arrivalsinto the country owing to increased negative internationalpublicity [65]. 'is has seen trophy hunting decliningmarkedly in many CAMPFIRE areas thereby deprivingimpoverished rural communities of a significant source ofincome [65, 67]. It is important to note that much of theincome from CAMPFIRE has been instrumental in variouscommunity development projects such as schools and clinics,in addition to being paid out as household dividends whichacted as a significant add-on to other livelihood activities suchas crop and livestock production [36, 65, 67]. Inflation ratesreached 1700% by 2005 while record hyperinflation overtookthe economy by 2008, rendering the Zimbabwean dollarvirtually worthless [62]. Under such circumstances, the lossesto inflation of CAMPFIRE cash benefits weremassive, therebyundermining community investment projects, in addition torendering as worthless any household cash dividends [62].While the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has scrapped theZimbabwean dollar and adopted amulticurrency system sincethe later part of 2009 as a way of arresting spiralling inflation,

8 Scientifica

tourist arrivals have remained low due to the country’scontinued negative international publicity, though, of late, thesituation seems to be improving gradually.

'e economic decline following the fast-track land re-form programme also saw many RDCs, as the appropriateauthorities for wildlife management, holding on to most ofthe revenue generated through CAMPFIRE as they werenow facing financial challenges [47, 62].'e absence of otherincome or taxable options has presented itself as a strongdisincentive for fiscal devolution in CAMPFIRE by RDCs[62, 68]. 'e reduction in the flow of benefits down tosubdistrict levels in turn has reduced the incentive forwildlife conservation among many CAMPFIRE communi-ties leading to an increase in illegal off-take in many areas.

While the area under wildlife was declining in Zimbabweafter the fast-track land reform programme, particularly forprivate conservancies and game ranches, the opposite wastaking place in other countries in the region [27]. For ex-ample, land under wildlife expanded by 40% in Namibia andby 10% in Mozambique and Zambia between 1996 and 2000[27].

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

'e paper has reviewed biodiversity conservation in Zim-babwe in relation to livelihoods. 'e review has shown thatbiodiversity conservation in the country went throughvarious periods, which also affected the livelihoods ofbiodiversity-dependent rural communities. 'e precolonialperiod represents an era when access to natural resources byindigenous populations was unlimited, with people and theirnatural environment coexisting in harmony. 'e colonialperiod was characterised by the appropriation of land bywhite settlers, culminating in racialised natural resourceownership and utilisation and loss of livelihoods by dis-placed indigenous peoples. 'e arrival of independencewitnessed a rapid growth of private wildlife conservanciesand also some devolution in natural resource managementto local communities from central government through theCAMPFIRE programme.

'e review paper highlights some important implica-tions that are seminal to the attainment of a more sustainablebiodiversity conservation and utilisation regime in Zim-babwe. Firstly, the paper has shown that ownership of re-sources is key to successful biodiversity conservation. A viewnow commonly held within conservation circles is that,when people own natural resources, either individually or asa clearly defined community, they are more likely to sus-tainably utilise those resources. It was partly due to this senseof ownership that sustainable resource conservation and usewas realised during the precolonial period. Additionally,private landowners during the colonial period were also ableto sustainably utilise resources on their lands. 'is is in clearcontrast with the unsustainable natural resource manage-ment situation that subsequently developed in the com-munal areas during and after the colonial period, where thepeople had been dispossessed of the resources they hadtraditionally owned and exploited. While some measure ofdevolution in the ownership and management of natural

resources in the communal areas has been effected throughCAMPFIRE, the need for a more complete devolution ofresource ownership and management is apparent, ifCAMPFIRE is to be fully sustainable both socially andecologically. Devolution has to reach the lowest possiblelevels truly representing local community institutions, withcommunities having full ownership, access, and manage-ment of the resources and the benefits thereof. It is sad tonote that other countries in the region such as Botswana,Namibia, and South Africa that came much later thanZimbabwe in CBNRM initiatives have adopted morecomplete devolution pathways ahead of Zimbabwe, withsuch initiatives characterised by higher levels of socioeco-nomic and ecological sustainability for the communitiesinvolved. However, such devolution should also ensure thatadequate measures are taken so as to avoid the taking over ofcommunity project benefits by emerging new elites at thegrassroots level.

'e ill-planned fast-track land reform exercise has,apparently, been detrimental to both biodiversity conser-vation activities and the livelihoods of biodiversity-dependent communities in Zimbabwe. 'is is especiallywhen some of the country’s protected areas were wholly orpartially converted into arable land, in spite of the un-suitability of such fragile and marginal areas to cultivation.Considering that such areas are only suitable for wildlifeconservation, the people who have been settled in these areasfor crop production should be moved to areas more suitablefor arable farming [69], leaving these areas exclusively towildlife management activities.

Conflicts of Interest

'e author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] United Nations, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),United Nations, Montreal, Canada, 1992.

[2] M. Chenje, L. Sola, and D. Paleczny, Eds., 5e State ofZimbabwe’s Environment, Government of Zimbabwe, Min-istry of Mines, Environment and Tourism, Harare, Zimbabwe,1998.

[3] D. R. Parajuli and T. D. Das, “Indigenous knowledge andbiodiversity: interconnectedness for sustainable develop-ment,” International Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 2,no. 8, pp. 220–224, 2013.

[4] V. Amirkia and M. Heinrich, “Alkaloids as drug leads:a predictive structural and biodiversity-based analysis,”Phytochemical Letters, vol. 10, 2014.

[5] P. F. Pinho, G. Patenaude, J. P. Ometto et al., “Ecosystemprotection and poverty alleviation in the tropics: perspectivefrom a historical evolution of policy-making in the BrazilianAmazon,” Ecosystem Services, vol. 8, pp. 97–109, 2014.

[6] K. J. Gaston and J. I. Spicer, Biodiversity: An Introduction,Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2004.

[7] N. Maxted, S. Kell, B. Ford-Loyd, and S. Stolton, “Food stores:protected areas conserving crop wild relatives and securingfuture food stocks,” in Arguments for Protected Areas: Mul-tiple Benefits for Conservation and Use, S. Stolton andN. Dudley, Eds., Earthscan, London, UK, 2010.

Scientifica 9

[8] D. C. Miller, “Explaining global patterns of international aidfor linked biodiversity conservation and development,”WorldDevelopment, vol. 59, pp. 341–359, 2014.

[9] C. Romero, S. Athayde, J. Collomb et al., “Conservation anddevelopment in Latin America and southern Africa: settingthe stage,” Ecology and Society, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 17–29, 2012.

[10] L. M. Scherl, A. Wilson, R. Wild et al., Can Protected AreasContribute to Poverty Reduction? Opportunities and limita-tions, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2004.

[11] M. Lockwood, G. Worboys, and A. Kothari, Managing Pro-tected Areas: A Global Guide, Earthscan, London, UK, 2006.

[12] BirdLife International, Livelihoods and the Environment atImportant Bird Areas: Listening to Local Voices, BirdLifeInternational, Cambridge, UK, 2007.

[13] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), Ecosystems andHuman Well-Being: Current State and Trends, World Re-sources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 2005a.

[14] A. M. Rosser and N. Leader-Williams, “Protection or use:a case of nuanced trade- offs?,” in Trade-Offs in Conservation:Deciding What to Save, N. Leader-Williams, W. M. Adams,and R. J. Smith, Eds., Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK, 2010.

[15] C. Upton, R. Ladle, and D. Hulme, “Are poverty and protectedareas establishment linked at a national scale?,” Oryx, vol. 42,no. 1, pp. 19–25, 2008.

[16] I. Bond, CAMPFIRE as a vehicle for sustainable rural devel-opment in semi-arid communal lands of Zimbabwe: incentivesfor institutional change, Ph.D. thesis, University of Zimbabwe,Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Eco-nomics and Extension, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1999.

[17] N. Muboko and F. Murindagomo, “Wildlife control, accessand utilisation: lessons from legislation, policy evolution andimplementation in Zimbabwe,” Journal for Nature Conser-vation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 206–211, 2014.

[18] E. Munowenyu, Introduction to Geographical 5ought andEnvironmental Studies, Module GED 101, Zimbabwe OpenUniversity, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1999.

[19] E. Osakwe, Geography: Its History, 5ought and Teaching,Fourth Dimension Publishers, Enugu, Nigeria, 1994.

[20] C. N. Mutanga, S. Vengesayi, N. Muboko, and E. Gandiwa,“Towards harmonious conservation relationships: a frame-work for understanding protected area staff-local communityrelationships in developing countries,” Journal for NatureConservation, vol. 25, pp. 8–16, 2015.

[21] A. Gandiwa, S. Sprangers, S. van Bommel, I. M. A. Heitkoniga,C. Leeuwis, and H. H. T. Prins, “Spill-over effect in mediaframing: representations of wildlife conservation inZimbabwean and international media, 1989–2010,” Journalfor Nature Conservation, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 413–423, 2014.

[22] V. C. Kwashirai, “Indigenous management of teak woodlandin Zimbabwe, 1850–1900,” Journal of Historical Geography,vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 816–832, 2007.

[23] E. Mapedza, “Forestry policy in colonial and postcolonialZimbabwe: continuity and change,” Journal of HistoricalGeography, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 833–851, 2007.

[24] M. Chemhuru and D. Masaka, “Taboos as sources of Shonapeople’s environmental ethics,” Journal of Sustainable De-velopment in Africa, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 121–133, 2010.

[25] F. Duri and J. Mapara, “Environmental awareness andmanagement strategies in pre-colonial Zimbabwe,” ZimbabweJournal of Geographical Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 98–111,2007.

[26] J. Mapara, “Indigenous knowledge systems in Zimbabwe:juxtaposing post-colonial theory,” Journal of Pan-AfricanStudies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 139–155, 2009.

[27] I. Bond and D. H. M. Cumming, “Wildlife research anddevelopment,” in Zimbabwe’ Agricultural Revolution Revis-ited, M. Rukuni, P. Tawonezvi, and C. Eicher, Eds., Universityof Zimbabwe Publications, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2006.

[28] B. Child, “'e emergence of modern conservation practice inZimbabwe,” in Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife Con-servation, H. Suich, B. Child, and A. Spenceley, Eds.,Earthscan, London, UK, 2009a.

[29] B. A. Child, J. Musengezi, G. D. Parent, and G. F. T. Child,“'e economics and institutional economics of wildlife onprivate land in Africa,” Pastoralism: Research, Policy andPractice, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–32, 2012.

[30] 'e World Bank, Living with Trees: Policies for ForestryManagement in Zimbabwe World Bank, Technical Paper No.210, P. N. Bradley and K. McNamara, Eds., 'e World Bank,Washington, DC, USA, 1993.

[31] I. Scoones and F. Matose, “Local woodland management:constraints and opportunities for sustainable resource use,” inLiving with Trees: Policies for Forestry Management in Zim-babwe, World Bank Technical Paper No. 210, P. N. Bradleyand K. McNamara, Eds., 'e World Bank, Washington, DC,USA, 1993.

[32] F. Nelson and A. Agrawal, “Patronage or participation:community-based natural resource management reform inSub-Saharan Africa,” Development and Change, vol. 39, no. 4,pp. 557–585, 2008.

[33] B. Child, “Game ranching in Zimbabwe,” in Evolution andInnovation in Wildlife Conservation, H. Suich, B. Child, andA. Spenceley, Eds., Earthscan, London, UK, 2009b.

[34] J. C. Murombedzi, “Agrarian social change and post-colonialnatural resource management interventions in southernAfrica’s communal tenure regimes,” in Community Rights,Conservation and Contested Land: the Politics of NaturalResource Governance in Africa, F. Nelson, Ed., Earthscan,London, UK, 2010.

[35] R. Duffy, Killing for Conservation: Wildlife Policy inZimbabwe, Weaver Press, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2000.

[36] W. Wolmer, J. Chaumba, and I. Scoones, “Wildlife man-agement and land reform in south-eastern Zimbabwe:a compatible pairing or a contradiction in terms?,” Geoforum,vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 87–98, 2004.

[37] P. Lindsey, R. du Toit, A. Pole, and S. Romanach, “Save valley:a large scale African experiment in cooperative wildlifemanagement,” in Evolution and Innovation in WildlifeConservation, H. Suich, B. Child, and A. Spenceley, Eds.,Earthscan, London, UK, 2009.

[38] F. Nelson, “'e politics of natural resource governance inAfrica,” in Community Rights, Conservation and ContestedLand: the Politics of Natural Resource Governance in Africa,F. Nelson, Ed., Earthscan, London, UK, 2010.

[39] Government of Zimbabwe, Ministry of Environment andNatural Resources Management, Zimbabwe EnvironmentOutlook: Our Environment, Everybody’s Responsibility,Zimbabwe’s5ird State of the Environment Report, B. Feresu,Ed., Government of Zimbabwe, Ministry of Environmentand Natural Resources Management, Harare, Zimbabwe,2010.

[40] H. Wels, Private Wildlife Conservation in Zimbabwe: JointVentures and Reciprocity, Brill, Boston, MA, USA, 2003.

[41] P. G. H. Frost and I. Bond, “'e CAMPFIRE programme inZimbabwe: payments for wildlife services,” Ecological Eco-nomics, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 776–787, 2008.

[42] R. Taylor, “'e performance of CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe:1989–2006,” in Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife

10 Scientifica

Conservation, H. Suich, B. Child, and A. Spenceley, Eds.,Earthscan, London, UK, 2009.

[43] E. Gandiwa, I. M. A. Heitkonig, A. M. Lokhorst,H. H. T. Prins, and C. Leeuwis, “CAMPFIRE and human–wildlife conflicts in local communities bordering northernGonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe,” Ecology and Society,vol. 18, no. 4, 2013.

[44] W. Olthof, “Wildlife resources and local development: expe-riences from Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE programme,” in LocalResource Management in Africa, J. P. M. van den Breemer,C. A. Drijver, and L. B. Venema, Eds., John Wiley and Sons,Chichester, UK, 1995.

[45] I. Bond, “CAMPFIRE and the incentives for institutionalchange,” in African Wildlife and Livelihoods; the Promise andPerformance of Community Conservation, D. Hulme andM. Murphree, Eds., James Currey Ltd., Oxford, UK, 2001.

[46] R. B. Martin, CAMPFIRE, Department of National Parks andWildlife Management, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1986.

[47] B. Child, B. Jones, D.Mazambani, A.Mlalazi, andH.Moinuddin,Final Evaluation Report: Zimbabwe Natural Resources Man-agement Programme, Harare, Zimbabwe, USAID/ZimbabweStrategic Objective No. 1, USAID, Washington, DC, USA, 2003.

[48] E. Mutandwa and C. T. Gadzirayi, “Impact of community-based approaches to wildlife management: case study of theCAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe,” International Journalof Sustainable Development and World Ecology, vol. 14, no. 4,pp. 336–344, 2007.

[49] K. M. Dunham, C. Davies, and K. Muhwandagara, Area andQuality of Wildlife Habitat in Selected CAMPFIRE Districts,WWF/CAMPFIRE Association, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2003.

[50] L. T. Chitsike, Decentralisation and Devolution of CAMPFIREin Zimbabwe, CASS Working Paper-NRM Series, CPN 107/2000, Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University ofZimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2000.

[51] E. P. Harrison, L. C. Stringer, and A. J. Dougill, 5e Im-portance of the Sub-District Level for Community-BasedNatural Resource Management in Rural Zimbabwe,Sustainability Research Institute Paper No. 69, School ofEarth and Environment, 'e University of Leeds, Leeds,UK, 2014.

[52] M. Murphree, “Congruent objectives, competing interests, andstrategic compromise: concept and process in the evolution ofZimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE, 1984–1996,” in Communities andConservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Nat-ural Resources Management, J. P. Brosius, A. L. Tsing, andC. Zerner, Eds., Alta/Mira Press,Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2005.

[53] J. C. Murombedzi, “Committees, rights, costs and benefits:natural resource stewardship and community benefits inZimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE programme,” in African Wildlifeand Livelihoods; the Promise and Performance of CommunityConservation, D. Hulme and M. Murphree, Eds., JamesCurrey Ltd., Oxford, UK, 2001.

[54] A. M. Larson and J. Lewis-Mendoza, “Decentralisation anddevolution in Nicaragua’s North Atlantic Autonomous Region:natural resources and indigenous peoples’ rights,” InternationalJournal of the Commons, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 179–199, 2012.

[55] D. Tom, “Factoring culture and discourse into an appraisal ofthe neoliberal synthesis of wildlife conservation and ruraldevelopment in sub-Saharan Africa,” Master’s thesis, DurhamUniversity, Durham, UK, 2011.

[56] J. C. Ribot, Waiting for Democracy: the Politics of Choice inNatural Resource Decentralisation, World Resources Institute,Washington, DC, USA, 2004.

[57] J. C. Ribot, A. Agrawal, and A. M. Larson, “Recentralisationwhile decentralising: how national governments reappro-priate forest resources,” World Development, vol. 34, no. 11,pp. 1864–1886, 2006.

[58] J. C. Ribot, Authority over Forests: Negotiating DemocraticDecentralisation in Senegal, Working Paper 36, Representa-tion, Enquiry, and EnvironmentWorking Paper Series,WorldResources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 2008.

[59] O. Chiyaka, 5e Limiting Statutory Framework for Econom-ically Beneficial Community-Based Natural Resource Man-agement in Zimbabwe and Botswana: A Comparative Analysis,Centre for Applied Social Sciences and the Programme forLand and Agrarian Studies, University of Zimbabwe andUniversity of Western Cape, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2003.

[60] E. C. Rihoy and B. Maguranyanga, Devolution and Demo-cratisation of Natural Resources Management in SouthernAfrica: A Comparative Analysis of CBNRM Policy Processes inBotswana and Zimbabwe, CASS-CBNRM Occasional PaperNo. 18, Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, Universityof Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa, 2007.

[61] J. Mashinya, Participation and devolution in Zimbabwe’sCAMPFIRE programme: findings from local projects inMahenye and Nyaminyami, Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of theGraduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park,MD, USA, 2007.

[62] L. Rihoy, C. Chirozva, and S. Anstey, “People are not happy:crisis adaptation and resilience in Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIREprogramme,” in Community Rights, Conservation and con-tested Land: the Politics of Natural Resource Governance inAfrica, F. Nelson, Ed., Earthscan, London, UK, 2010.

[63] G. Bauer and S. D. Taylor, Politics in Southern Africa: Stateand Society in Transition, Lynne Rienner, New York, NY,USA, 2005.

[64] G. Hill, What Happens after Mugabe: Can Zimbabwe Risefrom the Ashes?, Zebra Press, Cape Town, South Africa, 2005.

[65] J. Clover and S. Eriksen, “'e effects of land tenure change onsustainability: human security and environmental change insouthern African savannas,” Environmental Science andPolicy, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 53–70, 2009.

[66] J. Makadho, “Land redistribution experiences in Zimbabwe,1998–2004,” in Zimbabwe’ Agricultural Revolution revisited,M. Rukuni, P. Tawonezvi, and C. Eicher, Eds., University ofZimbabwe Publications, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2006.

[67] N. Nemarundwe, “'e performance of CBNRM in the face ofsocio-political dynamism: a case of CAMPFIRE in Masoka,Zimbabwe,” in Confronting the Crisis in Community Con-servation: Case Studies from Southern Africa, V. Dzingirai andC. Breen, Eds., Centre for Environment, Agriculture andDevelopment, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa,2005.

[68] R. D. Taylor and M. W. Murphree, Case Studies on SuccessfulSouthern African NRM Initiatives and 5eir Impacts onPoverty and Governance, Zimbabwe: Masoka and Gairezi,International Resources Group, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.

[69] T. Chigonda, “From cattle ranching to wildlife conservancies:Fixing an agro- ecological mis-match in the south-east low-veld of Zimbabwe,” European Journal of Social SciencesStudies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 152–160, 2018.

Scientifica 11

Research ArticleAn Assessment of Forage Selection by Giraffe Introduced intoUmfurudzi Park, Northern Zimbabwe

Takunda V. Munyaka and Edson Gandiwa

School of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe

Correspondence should be addressed to Edson Gandiwa; egandiwa@gmail.com

Received 1 March 2018; Revised 21 May 2018; Accepted 6 June 2018; Published 24 July 2018

Academic Editor: Alessandra Torina

Copyright © 2018 Takunda V. Munyaka and Edson Gandiwa. )is is an open access article distributed under the CreativeCommons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided theoriginal work is properly cited.

Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) is one of the flagship herbivore species in the savanna ecosystem and is of high conservation value.Management of the species under diversified ecosystems, particularly, their introduction in new ecosystems is of great concern,given that limited information is available of how the species acclimatizes to new ecosystems and which forage species it selects.)e objectives of the present study were to (i) identify woody plant species selected by the recently introduced giraffes and(ii) determine whether there were differences in woody plant diversity between the dry and wet seasons in Umfurudzi Park,northern Zimbabwe. Forage selection and woody composition data were collected from a herd of giraffe between May andDecember 2016, using the focal observation method in an enclosure within the study area. A total of 106 observation plots wereestablished. Our results showed that 12 woody plant species comprising six families were selected from a total of 29 woody plantspecies recorded in the study area. Giraffe showed a higher preference of the selected species in the dry season than in the wetseason. In contrast, no significant differences were recorded in terms of forage availability and woody vegetation diversity betweenseasons. In conclusion, our results suggest that plant phenology, particularly, presence of leaves on plants influences giraffe feedpreferences. Establishing long-term monitoring plots to determine woody vegetation utilisation by giraffes is valuable as a way tomonitoring habitat utilisation by the species.

1. Introduction

Giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) are browsing ruminants inthe family Bovidae [1]. According to Gordon et al. [1], giraffesmainly browse on woody plant parts and forbs and feedselectively. )e translocation of giraffes has been done fora number of reasons including the process of rehabilitation,and thus, the successes of giraffe translocation have shownthat giraffes can adapt to different ecosystems [2].

Several studies examined the feeding behavior of giraffesin Africa [3–5].)ese studies have reported forage selectivityby giraffes [4–6] across seasons [3]. Intake of forage bygiraffes is strongly affected by the plant defense mechanisms[7]. )e likelihood of a plant species being eaten whenencountered by an herbivore can be defined as the ac-ceptability of that plant species to the herbivore [8]. Fur-thermore, Arnold [9] defined availability as relating tofrequency of occurrence, relative yield, and accessibility, as

well as the nature of the surrounding plant material and thatthis will influence acceptability to animals.

Most wild animals that are introduced into new areashave to go through a process of acclimatization and adap-tation [2]. Of interest is that giraffes have proved to adapteasily to new environments and do not significantly affectother species that may be present in the areas they are in-troduced [2]. A recent introduction of giraffes was recordedin Umfurudzi Park, northern Zimbabwe. However, there islimited information of how the giraffes are utilising thehabitat in terms of species preferred between the dry and wetseason. )erefore, the objectives of the present study were to(i) identify woody plant species selected by the recentlyintroduced giraffes and (ii) determine whether there weredifferences in woody plant diversity between the dry and wetseasons in Umfurudzi Park. )e study results will providea baseline for future assessment of plant species utilisationpatterns by giraffes and habitat changes.

HindawiScientificaVolume 2018, Article ID 9062868, 5 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9062868

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area. Umfurudzi Park, northern Zimbabwe, liesbetween latitudes 17° 15′ and 16° 50′ south and 31° 40′ and32° 00′ north with altitude that ranges from 740 to 1020m.)e park covers an area of 760 km2 and is located ap-proximately 150 km from Harare [10]. )e park has a meanannual rainfall of 550mm [10]. Umfurudzi Park is dividedinto two seasons, namely, the dry and wet seasons. )e wetseason starts in November and ends in April, whereas thedry season begins in May and ends in October. )e park islocated in a Miombo ecoregion, an area dominated by thefollowing plant species: Brachystegia boehmii, Colo-phospermum mopane, and Julbernardia globiflora [11]. Aspart of the park rehabilitation programme, approximately1,800 animals including 43 giraffes (25 in 2012 and 18 in2013) were either reintroduced or introduced into Umfur-udzi Park between 2010 and 2013. )e studied giraffes wereconfined to an enclosure with an area of about 30 km2. )eenclosure is part of the Umfurudzi Park fenced to allow foranimal acclimatization before the fence is removed to allowanimals to utilise the wider park habitats.

2.2. Data Collection. A systematic random sampling tech-nique was used in selecting a focal animal to observe fromthe identified herd of giraffes, which consisted of eight in-dividuals. Walked transects were used to traverse the en-closure as these minimise disturbance to animals [12]. Datacollection was conducted during the day between 06:30 and18:30 hours, for the period 1st of May 2016 to 30th ofDecember 2016. Field data collection activities were dividedinto two, that is, focal observation and vegetation assess-ment. When any one giraffe from the study herd was ob-served browsing, the woody plant browsed was noted froma distance using binoculars following methods outlined byMuposhi et al. [10]. )e woody plant was visited after thegiraffe had moved to other plants so as not to influence thegiraffe-browsing patterns. A circular plot with a radius of15m was established around the browsed plant so as toassess the diversity of woody plants at each focal point.Overall, a total of 106 circular observation plots (71 for dryseason and 35 for wet season) were established and assessed.)e plant species names were recorded with the aid of treeidentification guides.

2.3. Data Analysis. Mapping of the woody plant speciesutilisation by giraffes over the study period was conducted,and woody species diversity was determined using theShannon–Weiner Index (H′) [13]. Giraffe preference wasquantified through determining the acceptability andavailability indices [14]. )e availability index was calculatedby dividing the number of observation points in which thewoody plant species was present by the total number ofobservation plots, whereas acceptability was calculated bydividing the number of observation plots in which thewoody species was foraged by the number of observationplots in which the species was present.

Data related to seasonal availability and acceptability andwoody vegetation composition were tested for normalityusing the Shapiro–Wilk test and found to be not normal.)us, the Mann–Whitney U test was used to determinewhether there were significant differences for the studyvariables between the dry and wet seasons using the Sta-tistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0 forWindows (SPSS Inc., Chicago).

3. Results

A total of 29 woody plant species were recorded from the 106observation plots with 12 woody plant species being selectedby the introduced giraffe. Piliostigma thonningii, Vangueriainfausta, Ziziphus mucronata, Combretum apiculatum,Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia, and Combretum mollewere preferred during the dry season, whereas Flueggeavirosa, Olea africana, Combretum erythrophyllum, Com-bretum hereroense, Combretum imberbe, and Ziziphusmucronata were preferred in the wet season. )ese speciesrepresented five families. A. karroo was also recorded asforage for both dry and wet seasons. Giraffes selected morethan three species in each month during the study period(Table 1).

Overall, there was a moderate availability of woodyplants browsed by the giraffes throughout the dry and wetseasons. Accordingly, there was a no significant difference inthe availability of woody species browsed by giraffes betweenthe dry and wet seasons in Umfurudzi Park (P> 0.05;Table 2). A significant difference in acceptability wasrecorded (P< 0.05; Table 2) with a total of 10 and 7 woodyplant species being selected by giraffes in Umfurudzi Park inthe dry and wet seasons, respectively (Table 3). )ere wasa no significant difference in woody species diversity be-tween the dry and wet season in Umfurudzi Park (Mann–Whitney U test, P> 0.05). Woody plant species from theCombretaceae family, that is, C. imberbe, C. hereroense, andC. erythrophyllum and those from Rhamnaceae family(i.e., Z. mucronata) were highly acceptable in the dry season.In the wet season, C. apiculatum from the Combretaceaefamily was the mostly acceptable species (Table 3).

4. Discussion

We recorded 12 tree species from six families(i.e., Combretaceae, Fabaceae, Phyllanthaceae, Oleaceae,Rubiaceae, and Rhamnaceae) that were preferably browsedby giraffes in Umfurudzi Park in the dry and wet seasons.Our results showed that most plant species selected by gi-raffes were from the family Combretaceae. Most of therecorded preferred woody plant species were frequentlybrowsed in both dry and wet seasons. An earlier study re-ported that in the southern parts of Zimbabwe, Acacia wasrecorded as the most frequently browsed woody plant genus[4]. In this present study, there was evidence of Acacia beingselected throughout both seasons showing that the genus ispreferred also in Miombo woodlands. However, it was ev-ident that giraffes also expanded their forage selection asevidenced by the 12 recorded and selected species; hence,

2 Scientifica

this infers their possible acclimatization in the Miomboecosystem.

Our results showed a variation in tree species selected bygiraffes between the dry and wet seasons. It has been sug-gested that herbivores select diets based on the concentra-tion of nutrients relative to toxins [7]. Giraffes are known toselect woody plant species on the basis of their nutritivevalue as well as the greenness (e.g., C. erthrophylum) [15].For instance, C. erythrophyllumwas preferred during the dryseason more than in the wet season in the present study.

Previous studies on giraffe diet have indicated that de-ciduous species such as A. karroo dominate the vegetation ofhabitats used by giraffes and make up the bulk of the dietduring the wet season [16]. )e present study differs fromthese earlier studies since the study area is predominantly

a Miombo ecosystem; hence, providing a broad range ofother species compared to the mopane-dominated savannaecosystem. During the dry season, however, these deciduousplants lose their leaves and the giraffes tend to concentratealong riverine habitats where they feed on the evergreenvegetation [16].

A significant seasonal variation in the acceptance of thewoody plants browsed by giraffes was recorded in thispresent study. Differences in the acceptance of tree speciesby the giraffe in relation to seasonality can be attributed towoody plant species selectivity by giraffes between the dryand wet seasons [17]. It has been reported that high ac-ceptance is influenced by favorable nutritive values of theforage species [5] among other factors. )e fact that some ofthe tree species were selected in both dry and wet seasons

Table 1: Mapping woody species selected by giraffes during the study period in Umfurudzi Park.

# Species name FamilyBrowse preferences

Dry season Wet seasonMAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

1 Acacia karroo Fabaceae DS DS DS DS WS WS2 Balanites aegyptiaca Zygophyllaceae3 Burkea africana Fabaceae4 Brachystegia boehmii Fabaceae5 Bauhinia galpinii Fabaceae6 Bauhinia petersiana Fabaceae7 Brachystegia spiciformis Fabaceae8 Combretum apiculatum Combretaceae DS WS9 Combretum erythrophyllum Combretaceae DS DS WS10 Croton gratissimus Euphorbiaceae11 Combretum hereroense Combretaceae DS DS DS DS12 Combretum imberbe Combretaceae DS WS WS13 Combretum molle Combretaceae DS14 Colophospermum mopane Fabaceae15 Commiphora mossambicensis Burseraceae16 Diplorhynchus condylocarpon Apocynaceae17 Flueggea virosa Phyllanthaceae DS WS18 Julbernardia globiflora Fabaceae19 Lantana camara Verbenaceae20 Lannea discolour Anacardiaceae21 Olea africana Oleaceae DS WS22 Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia Phyllanthaceae DS23 Piliostigma thonningii Fabaceae DS24 Terminalia brachystemma Combretaceae25 Terminalia sericea Combretaceae26 Terminalia stenostachya Combretaceae27 Vangueria infausta Rubiaceae DS DS28 Ximenia caffra Olacaceae29 Ziziphus mucronata Rhamnaceae DS DS DSDS � dry season; WS � wet season.

Table 2: Forage indices and species diversity (median± range) of woody plants selected by giraffes in the wet and dry season in UmfurudziPark.

VariableSeason

Mann–Whitney U df P valueDry season Wet season

Acceptability 0.36± 0.75 0.03± 1.02 29.00 1 0.014Availability 0.14± 0.50 0.08± 0.55 56.50 1 0.386Woody plant diversity (H′) 1.40± 1.40 1.45± 1.90 1089.50 1 0.183

Scientifica 3

suggests that woody plant availability had a little influenceon forage selection of giraffes. Omphile et al. [18], however,reported that seasonal selection of forage by herbivores canbe influenced by plant availability. It has been reported thatherbivore species will only switch diet if there are issues to dowith nutritive value or digestibility of the feed [14]. However,from the present study, forage availability was almost thesame in both the dry and wet seasons as evidenced by thenonsignificant difference in woody species plant diversity.

From field observations in this present study, it wasevident that during the dry season, giraffes concentratedin the riparian zone and browsed on species such asC. erythrophyllum and C. molle. During the wet season,giraffes switched to plant species such as F. virosa. )us,there was evidence to show that giraffes selected the mostnutritious and available tree species within each season [5].Change in seasons mean that the trees also go throughvariations such as leaf shading, fruits ripening, and in somecases death of plants [5]. )ese variations affect the forageselection by giraffes. For instance, field observations showedthat A. karroo had fruits during the dry season and leavesduring the wet season. )us, giraffes could utilise leaves inthe wet season and the fruits during the dry season.

Given that wild animals mostly search for plant speciesthat provide themwith the best nutrients, it is thus likely thatthe differences in selected plant species is influenced bychoices for nutrients and also plant defense systems, forexample, thorns and tannins. )erefore, it is likely that theplant phenology plays an important role in influencingherbivory patterns by giraffes in the study area.

5. Conclusion

)e giraffes in Umfurudzi Park selected a wide spectrum ofwoody plant species, that is, 12 species from the 29 speciesthat were recorded in this present study. )e results showa significant variation in the acceptability of woody plantspecies with giraffes showing high acceptability of certainspecies in the dry season than in the wet season. Further-more, the present study showed that there was a no sig-nificant difference in woody vegetation composition in the

study site in Umfurudzi Park between the dry and wetseasons. It is possible that giraffes were restricted to the fewwoody plant species found in the enclosure. )us, it isrecommended that future studies examine the parkwideforage selection by the giraffes so as to develop a baseline forfuture monitoring of habitat use by wild animal specieswithin the park.

Data Availability

)e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

)e authors thank the Zimbabwe Parks and WildlifeManagement Authority for supporting this study andMr. N. Ndlovu and Mrs. C. Gurure for the assistance in datacollection.

References

[1] C. N. Gordon, L. Eichenberger, P. Vorster, A. J. Leslie, andS. M. Jacobs, “Diet and seasonal dispersal of extralimitalgiraffe at Sanbona Wildlife Reserve, Little Karoo, SouthAfrica,” Koedoe, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2016.

[2] H. Bezuidenhout, S. Ferreira, andM. Herbst, “An assessmentof the proposed giraffe translocation from the Mata Matasection to Unions End in the Kalahari Gemsbok NationalPark,” SANParks Internal Report, pp. 1–12, SANParks,Pretoria, South Africa, 2010.

[3] J. Fennessy, “Home range and seasonal movements of Giraffacamelopardalis angolensis in the northern Namib Desert,”African Journal of Ecology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 318–327, 2009.

[4] P. A. Seeber, H. T. Ndlovu, P. Duncan, and A. Ganswindt,“Grazing behaviour of the giraffe in Hwange National Park,Zimbabwe,” African Journal of Ecology, vol. 50, no. 2,pp. 247–250, 2012.

Table 3: Seasonal availability and accessibility of woody plant species browsed by giraffes in Umfurudzi Park.

Species name FamilyDry season Wet season

Availability Acceptability Availability AcceptabilityA. karroo Fabaceae 0.50 0.35 0.42 0.10C. hereroense Combretaceae 0.19 0.60 0.25 0.05C. molle Combretaceae 0.33 0.23 0.55 0.00C. apiculatum Combretaceae 0.13 0.36 0.13 1.00C. imberbe Combretaceae 0.08 0.75 0.04 0.03C. erythrophyllum Combretaceae 0.14 0.53 0.05 0.04F. virosa Phyllanthaceae 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.07P. thonningii Fabaceae 0.08 0.44 0.00 0.00P. maprouneifolia Phyllanthaceae 0.48 0.19 0.00 0.00O. africana Oleaceae 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.03V. infausta Rubiaceae 0.43 0.13 0.00 0.00Z. mucronata Rhamnaceae 0.11 0.75 0.00 0.00Note. Dry season represents May to October and wet season represents November and December. Numbers in bold represent the woody plant species whichwere highly selected.

4 Scientifica

[5] K. N. McQualter, M. J. Chase, J. T. Fennessy, S. R. McLeod,and K. E. Leggett, “Home ranges, seasonal ranges and dailymovements of giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa) innorthern Botswana,” African Journal of Ecology, vol. 54, no. 1,pp. 99–102, 2016.

[6] O. Kok and D. Opperman, “Feeding-behavior of GiraffeGiraffa camelopardalis in theWillem Pretorius Game Reserve,orange-free-state,” South African Journal of Wildlife Research,vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 45–55, 1980.

[7] C. Skarpe and A. J. Hester, “Plant traits, browsing and gazingherbivores, and vegetation dynamics,” in 8e Ecology ofBrowsing and Grazing, pp. 217–261, Springer, Berlin, Ger-many, 2008.

[8] N. Owen-Smith and S. M. Cooper, “Palatability of woodyplants to browsing ruminants in a South African savanna,”Ecology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 319–331, 1987.

[9] G. W. Arnold, “8e diet of the grazing sheep,” Ph.D. thesis,University of London, London, UK, 1963.

[10] V. K. Muposhi, A. Chanyandura, E. Gandiwa et al., “Post-release monitoring of diet profile and diet quality of rein-troduced African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in Umfurudzi Park,Zimbabwe,” Tropical Conservation Science, vol. 7, no. 3,pp. 440–456, 2014.

[11] R. Mugandani, M. Wuta, A. Makarau, and B. Chipindu, “Re-classification of agro-ecological regions of Zimbabwe inconformity with climate variability and change,” African CropScience Journal, vol. 20, pp. 361–369, 2012.

[12] H. Magome, J. W. Cain III, N. Owen-Smith, and S. R. Henley,“Forage selection of sable antelope in Pilanesberg GameReserve, South Africa,” South African Journal of WildlifeResearch, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 35–41, 2008.

[13] M. O. Hill, “Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation andits consequences,” Ecology, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 427–432, 1973.

[14] T. M. Heggberget, E. Gaare, and J. P. Ball, “Reindeer (Rangifertarandus) and climate change: importance of winter forage,”Rangifer, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13–31, 2002.

[15] N. R. Mkhize, I. M. Heitkonig, P. F. Scogings, L. E. Dziba,H. H. Prins, and W. F. de Boer, “Condensed tannins reducebrowsing and increase grazing time of free-ranging goats insemi-arid savannas,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science,vol. 169, pp. 33–37, 2015.

[16] D. Parker and R. Bernard, “)e diet and ecological role ofgiraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) introduced to the EasternCape, South Africa,” Journal of Zoology, vol. 267, no. 2,pp. 203–210, 2005.

[17] K. R. Searle and L. A. Shipley, “)e comparative feedingbehaviour of large browsing and grazing herbivores,” in 8eecology of browsing and grazing, pp. 117–148, Springer, Berlin,Germany, 2008.

[18] U. Omphile, A. Aganga, K. Tshireletso, and R. Nkele, “For-aging strategies of sheep and goats under semi-intensivemanagement in Botswana,” South African Journal of Ani-mal Science, vol. 34, pp. 120–122, 2004.

Scientifica 5