LOS PLANES DE PENSIONES DE RENTA MIXTA

The main period of faecal sampling took place at Ol Pejeta between May and October 2004 and June and September 2005. Additional faecal samples were collected between June and August 2006. At the start of the study, Ol Pejeta Conservancy had 48 recorded black rhinoceros within the Sweetwaters Game Reserve. These animals were monitored and protected daily by a team of approximately 28 armed rangers whose responsibility was to locate and identify all the rhinoceros within their patrol area. A number of the founding animals within the reserve had been ear notched during their translocation to facilitate monitoring and identification. However, these were relatively few in number (N ~ 18) with the majority of the 48 animals (N ~ 30) un-notched, particularly the sub-adults and calves. Monitoring and identification of un-notched animals relied on a combination of association with notched animals (e.g. mothers and calves), distinctive body characteristics, particularly horn shape, size, sex and home range.

Monitoring of black rhinoceros in Sweetwaters Game Reserve was further complicated by the thick vegetation, particularly Euclea divinorum and associated shrubs: this is the black rhinoceros‟ preferred habitat particularly during the day. The difficulties of monitoring the

" ) " ) 37°0'0"E 37°0'0"E 36°58'0"E 36°58'0"E 36°56'0"E 36°56'0"E 36°54'0"E 36°54'0"E 36°52'0"E 36°52'0"E 36°50'0"E 36°50'0"E 36°48'0"E 36°48'0"E 36°46'0"E 36°46'0"E 36°44'0"E 36°44'0"E 0°6'0"N 0°6'0"N 0°4'0"N 0°4'0"N 0°2'0"N 0°2'0"N 0°0'0" 0°0'0" 0°2'0"S 0°2'0"S 0°4'0"S 0°4'0"S 0°6'0"S 0°6'0"S 0°8'0"S 0°10'0"S " ) 0 1.252.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 Kilometers

-

) Wildlife and Security Control River Fence Removed in 2007 Conservancy Roads Vegetation Bare Soil Crop Fields Grass Closed Shrubs Closed Shrubs Open Trees Open Trees Closed Swamp Water

animals within Ol Pejeta were highlighted by the identification of an additional three animals in 2006 that had not been previously recorded; one adult female, and one sub-adult and calf which were presumed to be the offspring of the adult female.

At the start of the study there were no tissue samples available for any of the black rhinoceros within the Ol Pejeta Conservancy. The initial stages genotyping was to rely solely on DNA extracted from faeces; therefore the fieldwork at Ol Pejeta was undertaken with the aim of collecting fresh faecal samples from every black rhinoceros within the reserve.

All sample collection conducted at Sweet Waters Game Reserve was accomplished on foot with the aid of one of the black rhinoceros monitoring patrols. The area to be searched each day would be decided upon depending on a particular target animal and in accordance with the monitoring patrols remit of monitoring all the animals in a given area. Searches of the target area were broken down into several phases. Initially the roads and areas around water holes were checked for signs of fresh rhino spoor; if any were found then these would be followed in an attempt to locate the animal. If no fresh spoor was found, the patrols moved into an area where, based on their experience, they believed a particular rhino may be located and a sweep of the area was undertaken.

When a rhinoceros was located, it was followed until it did one of the following: defecated, went down on a bedding site (usually around mid-morning) or detected our presence and ran away. It would appear that rhinoceros usually defecate just before going down on a bedding site, around mid morning or just after getting up from it, around mid afternoon. If the animal went down onto a bedding site without defecating, then the location would be recorded on a GPS and an attempt would be made to collect a sample in the afternoon. When an animal was observed defecating, a sample was collected once the animal had left the area. All the sample collection equipment was carried in pouches on army webbing. This method enabled unused pots, used pots, gloves, forceps, waste etc to be kept physically separated in order to minimise the chances of cross-contamination. Two samples of about 5 g each were collected from each animal, following the same procedure as that used to sample the captive animals‟ faeces. In those instances where contamination from another stool was a possibility, then a sample was only taken from the inside of the stool. The identity of the animal was recorded according to a scoring system based on the reliability of the identification (ID); that is, ear notches, size, sex, mother calf pairings etc.

The date, time, location, sex and other pertinent information were also recorded including possible alternative IDs where identification was ambiguous. Gloves were worn throughout the sample collection procedure and new, sterile forceps and spatulas were used for each sample. About 5 g of sample were added to approximately 20 g of silica gel and the pots were sealed with Parafilm™ (SPI Supplies). The pots were then labelled and taken back to the research centre for storage at room temperature. At every stage of sample collection, every effort was made to reduce the chances of cross contamination.

The description above is an example of an ideal sample collection episode, with regards to individual identification. However, there were many instances when this was not the case. In nearly 60% of cases, the identity of the animals from which samples originated was questionable: this was mainly due to an incomplete sighting of the target animal. It became apparent during the course of sample collection, that the typing of sex genes would prove invaluable in identification information of a given sample.

If a fresh sample was found before the location of an animal, it was collected and every effort was made to locate the animal in the vicinity. If an animal was found within the vicinity then its identification was recorded next to that of the sample, according to a predefined scoring system. The scoring system was based upon a number of points being allocated to a sample: four points was the highest score and was assigned in those cases where identity was certain, this went down the scale to one point, which was assigned to samples where the identity was completely unknown. Sex gene typing would quickly rule out any animals of the wrong sex in those instances where the animal could be sexed by the patrols. Similarly, sex gene typing, coupled with very good home range data, would enable the identity of some samples to be determined, such as in those cases where samples from a mother and calf or two sub adults were collected. In some cases it was difficult to distinguish between the middens of mothers and larger calves; again, sex gene typing would assist in assigning the correct genotype to a given animal.

Some of the animals in Ol Pejeta were relatively easy to locate and follow until they produced a sample, with the patrols finding them every three to four days. However, some of the animals were very shy and difficult to find and might not be found for up to a month at a time: this made the sample collection very difficult for these animals and unfortunately a couple of individuals were missed from the study. Over the period of the fieldwork, a total of 82 fresh faecal samples were collected corresponding to 46 animals (Figure 2.2).

Towards the end of the sample collection at Ol Pejeta the rhinoceros monitoring protocols were changed under the direction of a new wildlife manager: the number of monitoring patrols was increased, as was the training in identification and monitoring therefore the requirements for the maximum number of days between individual sightings was reduced.

Figure 2.2. Map showing faecal samples collected for Ol Pejeta Conservancy