Download full text

1
Commentary
2
3
Nature conservation at the edge
4
5
Jan Christian Habel1*, Mike Teucher2, Ronald K. Mulwa3, Wolfgang Haber4,
6
Hilde Eggermont5,6, Luc Lens7
7
8
1
9
School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, D-85354 Freising,
Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management,
10
Germany
11
2
Department of Cartography, Trier University, D-54286 Trier, Germany
12
3
Zoology Department, National Museums of Kenya, K-00100 Nairobi, Kenya
13
4
Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences
14
Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, D-85354 Freising, Germany
15
5
16
1000 Brussels, Belgium
17
6
Limnology Unit, Department of Biology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
18
7
Terrestrial Ecology Unit, Department of Biology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
Belgian Biodiversity Platform, OD Nature, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, B-
19
20
*Corresponding author:
21
Jan Christian Habel, Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and
22
Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität
23
München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, D-85354 Freising, Germany
24
E-Mail: [email protected]
25
1
26
Key-words: Agro-ecological zone, biodiversity, cash crop, evidence-based conservation, food
27
security, food crop, human population, nature reserve, prioritization
28
2
29
ABSTRACT
30
Currently, there is an increasing need for evidence-based strategies in nature conservation, for
31
example when designing and establishing nature reserves. In this contribution, we critically
32
assess the ecological relevance of recent nature conservation practices in Kenya (East Africa),
33
a region of global biodiversity hotspots. More specifically, we overlay the distribution of
34
species richness (here based on mammals, birds, amphibians and vascular plants) with the
35
location of nature reserves, the Kenyan agro-ecological zones (areas representing diverging
36
agricultural potentials), and with the spatial distribution of human population density. Our
37
analyses indicate that the majority of protected areas are located in areas with comparatively
38
low species richness, while areas with extraordinary high levels of species richness are not
39
adequately covered by protected areas. Areas of high agricultural productivity (and with high
40
human demographic pressure) are mainly reserved for high-yield agriculture; however, these
41
regions are also characterised by high species richness. The majority of nature reserves are
42
restricted to the semi-arid regions of Kenya, marginal for agricultural usage, but also with low
43
levels of species richness. Based on this analysis, we prioritize areas for future protection.
44
This single-country case illustrates that agricultural production in high-yield areas outweighs
45
nature conservation goals, even in global biodiversity hotspot regions, and that priority setting
46
may conflict with effective nature conservation.
47
3
48
Introduction
49
Recent studies critically examined the efficiency and relevance of nature conservation, which
50
often focuses on the protection of large and charismatic species (rather than of species with
51
high ecological relevance, or species groups like arthropods providing the mass of
52
biodiversity, see Stork & Habel 2014), maintenance of specific successional stages of selected
53
ecosystems (Rodrigues et al. 2006), or the conservation of man-made landscapes, in particular
54
in Europe (Plieninger et al. 2006). In the meantime, other studies from scientists and
55
practitioners plea for a revolution in nature conservation, towards more objectivity in
56
conservation strategies with management based on ecological evidences rather than on
57
political agendas (Pullin & Knight 2003, Sutherland et al. 2004, Svancara et al. 2005).
58
59
Most of the established nature reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa are a legacy from the past
60
colonial era (MacKenzie 1997, Lindsey et al. 2007). Examples are the vast savannahs in
61
semiarid regions such as the Lowveld in Southern Africa or the Mara-Serengeti plains in East
62
Africa. These nature reserves form the main body of wildlife tourism and nature conservation,
63
and have high economic importance for many African countries (e.g. the Kenyan National
64
Parks, with >2 billion visitors per year, KNBS 2014; 12.1% of the GDP and 9.2% of total
65
employment (WTTC 2015)). However, most of these lowland protected areas are
66
characterised by marginal agricultural value and low ecological productivity, and hold a
67
comparatively small proportion of the total species richness too (Waide et al. 1999).
68
69
In this commentary, we question the ecological relevance of many of these selected areas for
70
nature conservation in Sub-Saharan African countries, and we illustrate our case with Kenya,
71
one of the leading countries in African wildlife conservation and tourism. We therefore
72
performed a country-wide assessment of (i) the distribution of species richness based on
73
mammals, birds, amphibians and vascular plants (cross-taxon consensus percentage of species
4
74
occurrence per 25x25 km grid cell), and of global biodiversity hotspots (according to
75
Conservation International; Myers et al. 2000, Mittermeier et al. 2011); (ii) the location of
76
nature conservation reserves (protected areas according to IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2015)
77
categories, including governmental and private conservation areas); (iii) the distribution of
78
agro-ecological zones (AEZs) based on temperature, rainfall regimes and altitude; and (iv) the
79
distribution of the human population using census data of the year 2009 (KNBS 2015). In a
80
second step, we assessed potential spatial congruencies and discongruencies by creating a
81
consensus map of species richness based on the four taxa studied and spatially overlapping
82
this map with the current location of nature reserves (Fig. 1), AEZs, and human population
83
data (Fig. 2).
84
85
Centres of species richness beyond protected areas
86
At present, Kenya holds 249 governmental and non-governmental (private conservancies)
87
nature reserves that jointly cover about 8% of the country. However, the distribution of these
88
nature reserves is geographically uneven. Likewise, species richness is unevenly distributed,
89
with areas of high (endemic) species accumulation across the Eastern Afromontane region
90
(e.g. Taita Hills, Chyulu Hills, Central Kenyan highlands including the Aberdares, Mau
91
Escarpment or Mt. Kenya, as well as the mountain ranges in the north of Kenya) and the
92
Coastal Forests (both regions classified as global biodiversity hotspots, Mittermeier et al.
93
2011; see also Bennun and Njoroge 1999, Burgess et al. 2007) (Appendix S1). This spatial
94
distribution of high species richness is congruent with former studies on amphibians and
95
reptiles (Spawls et al. 2002, Lötters et al. 2007, Poynton et al. 2007, Measey et al. 2009),
96
birds (Zimmermann et al. 1999), butterflies (Larsen 1991), and vascular plants (Lovett 1998,
97
Burgess et al. 2005, Platts et al. 2010).
98
5
99
Our intersect analyses indicate that areas with high levels of species richness only cover
100
20.2% of the total area of Kenya - the highlands. But, o nly a very small proportion (14.1%)
101
of protected land is located in these highland regions (FAO 2009), and only 56 of the 249
102
nature reserves in Kenya (22.5%) overlap with the Eastern Afromontane and Coastal Forests
103
biodiversity hotspots. Only 20% (1,795,730ha) of protected areas cover regions with
104
extraordinary high species richness (>40% of the mean number of species over all taxonomic
105
groups analysed here). In reverse, 80% of all nature reserves are located beyond regions of
106
high levels of species richness. The top ten grid cells with highest levels of species richness
107
can be found in the Western and Central part of Kenya (protected by Kakamega and Nandi
108
forest, Aberdare forest reserve, Kikuyu Escarpment, Mt. Longonot, Moguga Forest, and Lake
109
Niavasha). But even these areas are only partially covered by nature reserves (Appendix S2).
110
111
Furthermore, most of nature reserves found at higher elevations are comparatively small
112
(266.2±435.1km²) compared to the mean size of nature reserves in Kenya (387.2±1125.1km²).
113
This disparity between spatial distribution of species richness and the location and extent of
114
nature reserves seems to be a worldwide phenomenon, as indicated by Burgess and colleagues
115
(2005). Criteria used to define conservation areas are therefore questionable.
116
117
Protected areas and agro-ecological zones
118
We used data from the Farm Management Handbook of Kenya (FMHB; Jaetzold et al. 2012)
119
to better understand the above-mentioned discrepancy between the distribution of species
120
richness and nature reserves. The FMHB provides a substantial long-term country-wide
121
survey of biotic and abiotic data, such as rainfall patterns, temperature, soil type, soil fertility
122
and census data on the human population density (Jaetzold et al. 2012). Based on a matrix of
123
a six-step altitudinal temperature gradient and a seven-step potential evapotranspiration (PET)
124
gradient, ranging from 0.1 PET to 1.25 PET, a total of 42 combinations of agro-ecological
6
125
zones (AEZ) are distinguished in Kenya. These AEZs range from high to low (i.e. a complete
126
lack of) agricultural productivity (Jaetzold et al. 2012). For our study, we further assigned
127
these zones into four categories according to the PET-based humidity-aridity gradient, in
128
order to establish an altitudinal independent classification of agricultural productivity with
129
high potential (AEZ 0-2), medium potential (AEZ 3 and 4), low potential (AEZ 5) and very
130
low potential (AEZ 6 and 7). We spatially overlapped these AEZs with (i) areas conserved by
131
any nature protection status, and (ii) the distribution of the human population density.
132
133
According to these FMHB data, 81.4% of the Kenyan land is semi-arid to arid, and thus of
134
marginal agricultural value (so-called `worthless land´). When overlapping these AEZs with
135
areas that are protected to some degree, we found that most protected areas are restricted to
136
land of low agricultural value (characterised by comparatively low precipitation and
137
periodically sparsely occurring rainfalls). Vice versa, only 13.2% of protected areas are found
138
within AEZs of high agricultural potential (AEZ 1 and 2), and only 8.5% within areas of
139
medium agricultural value (AEZ 3 and AEZ 4). This picture is independent of the type of
140
protection, i.e. governmental (e.g. National Park) or non-governmental (e.g. Game
141
Conservancy). The spatial configuration is displayed in Figure 2. Further details on AEZ-
142
nature reserve overlaps (distinguished between governmental and non-governmental) are
143
given in Table 1.
144
145
The spatial distribution and dominance of the AEZ with low agricultural potential underlines
146
the economic impact of agro-industries in many African and other developing countries
147
(Habel et al. 2015 with references therein). More specifically, Kenya´s economy highly
148
depends on cash-crop production representing 19.4% of the GDP and 95.2% of total
149
employment (alongside tourism, mining and manufacturing) (Kiteme et al. 2008; Worldbank
150
2015, WTTC 2015). As a consequence, areas of high productivity (in Kenya mainly found in
7
151
highland regions) are heavily exploited for food and cash-crop production (especially since
152
the colonial era), while nature protection is restricted to regions with low (or no) agricultural
153
importance.
154
155
Biodiversity, nature conservation and human population pressure
156
The semi-arid lowlands, holding many nature reserves, have been suffering from increasing
157
human pressure and (over)exploitation of natural resources, like soils (KNBS 2015). The
158
increase in human population was particularly high during the colonial period, when highly
159
productive regions (the White-Highlands, Laikipia Plateau, Uasin Gishu Plateau; Jaetzold et
160
al. 2006, 2011) were transformed into cash-crop monocultures (Habel et al. 2015) and many
161
of the former local people had to move out from these highlands, and shifted to lowland areas
162
(Kipkorir 1978, Thurston 1987). A first census on the Kenyan human population size
163
estimates about 2 million people at the beginning of the 20th century, and by the end of the
164
colonial period in 1962 the human population had increased to 8.1 million people. Thereafter
165
(i.e. past 30 years), the human population further increased with more than 250% - i.e. from
166
16.26 million people in 1980 up to 40.9 in 2010 (Republic of Kenya 1964, KNBS 2015). This
167
situation caused an increasing parcelling of land-plots, and a rising need for more land to
168
produce enough food crops, with negative effects on ecosystem functions and services. Food
169
crop yields per ha, however, stagnated (e.g. from 1980 to 2012, production increased with
170
about 160% whereas yields per hectar increased by only 140%; FAOSTAT 2014).
171
Subsequently, the land needed to produce the same amount of food increased. This resulted in
172
conflicts between the production of cash-crops (agro-economy), food crops (subsistence
173
agriculture), and nature conservation across Kenya (Habel et al. 2015). Furthermore, wildlife-
174
conflicts arised especially along the borders of protected areas with, for example, illegal
175
logging in the Taita Hills cloud forest and the Kakamega forest, illegal hunting in Arabuko
176
Sokoke forest (Wildlifedirect 2009), and illegal pastoralism in vast areas of Tsavo and Mara
8
177
National Parks (Okello & Kiringe 2004, Kiringe & Okello 2007, FAO 2009, Job & Paesler
178
2013). Today, several protected areas are fenced (e.g. Aberdares, Nairobi, Nakuru, Marsabit
179
and Mt Kenya, Arabuko Sokoke National Park), not only to reduce conflicts between wildlife
180
and humans, but also to prevent activities of local people inside these protected areas. This
181
`gated conservation´ strategy might be the only viable solution, especially in densely
182
populated areas. Yet, it prevents any participation by the local community and the long-term
183
acceptance of people. as well as migration of wildlife among protected areas. The long-term
184
efficiency of such actions therefore remains highly questionable.
185
186
Prioritizing areas for future conservation activity
187
Our overlap analyses show that nature conservation strategies in Kenya mainly focus on areas
188
with rather low species richness, while areas of high ecological relevance are mostly typified
189
by high agricultural productivity, and thus often reserved for agricultural purposes.
190
Accordingly, demographic pressure in such areas is exceptionally high. We found that some
191
regions, such as the southern and south-western parts of Kenya as well as the coastal region,
192
show extraordinary high levels of species richness, but are without any - or only under
193
marginal - nature protection. This study hence underlines that the occurrence of the “big five”
194
(African lion Panthera leo, African elephant Loxodonta africana, African buffalo Syncerus
195
caffer, African leopard Panthera pardus pardus, and the African rhinoceros Diceros bicornis
196
i.e. Ceratotherium simum) still seems to be the decisive factor when selecting nature reserves
197
due to there importance for Kenya’s tourism, while the protection of prime biodiversity
198
regions seems to be of lesser priority.
199
9
200
Acknowledgement
201
We are grateful to Ralph Jaetzold and Berthold Hornetz (Trier, Germany) for providing the
202
valuable data-sets of the FMHB. We thank one anonymous referees for critical comments on
203
a draft version of this contribution.
204
10
205
References
206
Bennun LA, Njoroge P (1999) Important bird areas of Kenya. Nature Kenya, Nairobi.
207
BirdLife International and NatureServe (2015) Bird species distribution maps of the world.
208
BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK and Nature Serve, Arlington, USA.
209
Burgess N, Küper W, Mutke J, Brown J, Westaway S, Turpie S, Meshack C, Taplin J,
210
McClean J, Lovett JC (2005) Major gaps in the distribution of protected areas for
211
threatened and narrow range afrotorpical plants. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:
212
1877-1894.
213
Burgess ND, Butynski TM, Cordeiro NJ, Doggart NH, Fjelsa J, Howell KM, Kilahama FB,
214
Loader SP, Lovett JC, Mbilinyi B, Menegon M, Moyer DC, Nashanda E, Perkin A,
215
Rovero F, Stanley WT, Stuart SN (2007) The biological importance of the Eastern Arc
216
Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biological Conservation 134: 209-231.
217
Food and Agricultural Organization (2009) Human-wildlife conflict in Africa - causes,
218
219
220
221
consequences and management strategies, Rom, FAO Forest Paper 157.
Fjeldsa J, Burgess ND, Blyth S, de Klark M (2004) Where are the major gaps in the reserve
network for Africa´s mammals? Oryx 38: 17-25.
Habel JC, Teucher M, Hornetz B, Jaetzold R, Kimatu JN, Kasili S, Mairura Z, Mulwa RK,
222
Eggermont H, Weisser WW, Lens L (2015) Real-world complexity of food security
223
and biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 24: 1531-1539.
224
225
226
227
228
IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2015) The world database on protected areas (WDPA),
Cambridge, UK, UNEP-WCMC, www.protectedplanet.net (accessed 20.5.2015)
IUCN Red List of threatened species – digital distribution maps, Cambridge, UK,
http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/spatial-data (accessed 21.12.2015)
Jaetzold R, Schmidt H, Hornetz B, Shisanya CA (2011) Farm Management Handbook of
229
Kenya.- Vol. II, Natural conditions and farm management information, Part B: Central
230
Kenya. Subpart B1b: Northern Rift Valley Province. Ministry of Agriculture and GIZ,
231
Nairobi.
232
Jaetzold R, Schmidt H, Hornetz B, Shisanya CA (2006) Farm Management Handbook of
233
Kenya. Volume II: Natural conditions and farm management information. Part C: East
234
Kenya. Subpart C1: Eastern Province. Ministry of Agriculture and GIZ, Nairobi.
235
Jaetzold R, Schmidt H, Hornetz B, Shisanya CA (2012) Farm Management Handbook of
236
Kenya. Volume II: Natural conditions and farm management information. Part C: East
237
Kenya. Subpart C2: Coast Province. Ministry of Agriculture and GIZ, Nairobi.
11
238
Job H, Paesler F (2013) Links between nature-based tourism, protected areas, poverty
239
alleviation and crises – the example of Wasini Island (Kenya). Journal of Outdoor
240
Recreation and Tourism 1: 18-28.
241
Kier G, Mutke J, Dinerstein E, Ricketts TH, Küper W, Kreft H, Barthlott W (2005) Global
242
patterns of plant diversity and floristic knowledge. Journal of Biogeography 32: 1107–
243
1116.
244
245
Kiringe JW, Okello MM (2007) Threats and their relative severity to wildlife protected areas
of Kenya. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 5: 49-62.
246
Kiteme B, Liniger HP, Notter B, Wiesmann U, Kohler T (2008) Dimensions of global change
247
in African Mountains: The Example of Mount Kenya. In International Human
248
Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change: Mountainous Regions:
249
Laboratories for Adaptation; Rechkemmer A (ed), International Dimensions Programme
250
on Global Environmental Change: Bonn, Germany, Volume 2.
251
252
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2015) Population and housing census 2009,
www.knbs.or.ke/population.php (accessed 20.5.2015)
253
Larsen TB (1991) The butterflies of Kenya and their natural history. 490pp.
254
Lindsey PA, Roulet PA, Rmanach SS (2007) Economic and conservation significance of the
255
trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation 134: 455-469.
256
257
258
Lovett JC (1998) Importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains for vascular plants. Journal of
East African Natural History 87: 59-74.
Lötters S, Wagner P, Bwong BA, Schick S, Malonza PK, Muchai V, Wasonga DV, Veith M
259
(2007) A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Kakamega forest. Nairobi and
260
Mainz, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, University of Mainz, Germany, Pp 112.
261
MacKenzie JM (1997) The empire of nature: hunting, conservation and British imperialism.
262
263
264
265
266
267
Manchester University Press, Manchester, New York.
Okello MM, Kiringe JW (2004) Threats to biodiversity and their implications in protected and
adjacent dispersal areas of Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12: 55-69.
Measey GJ, Malonza PK, Muchai V (2009) Amphibians of Taita Hills. SANBI Biodiversity
Series 12, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Mittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, Gascon C (2011) Global biodiversity
268
conservation: the critical role of hotspots. In: Zachos FE, Habel JC (eds) Biodiversity
269
hotspots – distribution and protection of conservation priority areas. Springer,
270
Heidelberg, pp 2–22.
12
271
272
273
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.
Platts PJ, Ahrends A, Gereau RE, McClean CJ, Lovett JC, Marshall AR, Pellikka PKE,
274
Mulligan M, Fanning E, Marchant R (2010) Delimiting tropical mountain ecoregions for
275
conservation. Diversity and Distributions 16: 628-642.
276
Plieninger T, Höchtl F, Spek T (2006) Traditional land-use and nature conservation in
277
European rural landscapes. Environmental Science and Policy 9: 317-321.
278
Poynton JC, Loader SP, Sherratt E, Clarke BT (2007) Amphibian diversity in East African
279
biodiversity hotspots: altitudinal and latitudinal patterns. Vertebrate Conservation and
280
Biodiversity 5:277-292.
281
282
Pullin AS, Knight TM (2003) Support for decision making in conservation practice: an
evidence-based approach. Journal for Nature Conservation 11: 83-90.
283
Republic of Kenya (1959) Kenya population census 1962. Nairobi
284
Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 71-76.
Spawls S, Howell K, Drewes RC, Ashe J (2002) Field guide to the reptiles of East Africa: All
the reptiles of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi.
Stork N, Habel JC (2014) Can biodiversity hotspots protect more than tropical forest plants
and vertebrates? Journal of Biogeography 41: 421-428.
Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dom PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence-based
conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 305-308.
292
Svancara LK, Brannon RJ, Scott M, Groves CR, Noss RF, Pressey RL (2005) Policy-driven
293
versus evidence-based conservation: A review of political targets and biological needs.
294
BioScience 55: 989-995.
295
Thurston A (1987) Smallholder agriculture in colonial Kenya: the official mind and the
296
Swynnerton Plan. Cambridge African Monographs African Studies Centre, Cambridge
297
No. 8.
298
Waide RB, Willig MR, Steiner CF, Mittelbach G, Gough L, Dodson SI, Juday GP, Parmenter
299
R (1999) The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annual Review of
300
Ecology and Systematics 30: 257-300.
301
302
Wildlifedirect (2009) http://davidngala.wildlifedirect.org/2009/01/28/bush-meat-survey-inarabuko-sokoke-forest/ (accessed 20.5.2015)
13
303
Worldbank (2015) World development indicators - agriculture, value added (% of GDP),
304
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators (accessed
305
20.5.2015)
306
World Travel and Tourism Council (2005) Benchmarking report Kenya 2015,
307
http://www.wttc.org/-
308
/media/files/reports/benchmark%20reports/country%20reports%202015/kenya%20%20
309
benchmarking%20report%202015.pdf (accessed 20.5.2015)
310
311
Zimmerman DA, Turner DA, Pearson DJ (1999) Birds of Kenya and Northern Tanzania,
Field guide edition.
312
14
1
Figure 1: Overlap of all Kenyan nature reserves (governmental and non-governmental) (white
2
lines) with species richness (consensus percentage value across four taxa in relation to the
3
total number of species known for Kenya), classified into five categories. Species richness
4
includes distribution data of the following taxonomic groups: mammals and amphibians (data
5
from the IUCN Red List of threatened species, digital distribution maps), birds (data from
6
BirdLife International and NatureServe 2015), and vascular plants (data from Kier et al.
7
2005). Data were trimmed to fit for Kenya using the clip function in ArcGis, and transformed
8
into a 25x25km grid.
9
10
15
1
Figure 2: Overlap of all 249 governmental and non-governmental protected areas (data from
2
IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2015) (black shaded), the four categories of AEZs (according to
3
FMHB), and the distribution of the human population density (inhabitants per ha) (data from
4
KNBS 2015).
5
6
16
1
Table 1: Overlap between agro-ecological zones (divided into four categories, data obtained
2
from FMHB) and protected areas (governmental and non-governmental, distinguished).
3
Values are expressed as percentages.
Type of reserve
Governmental
Forest Reserve
Marine National Park
Marine National Reserve
National Park
National Reserve
National Sanctuary
Not Reported
Total (Gov.)[%]
Non-governmental
Community Conservancy
Community Nature Reserve
Community Wildlife Sanctuary
Group Ranch
Private Nature Reserve
Private Protected Area
Private Ranch
Wildlife Sanctuary
Total (Non-gov.) [%]
Total (both) [%]
AEZ
very low
AEZ
AEZ
low medium
AEZ
high
Total
[%]
0.93
38.58
17.35
59.86
1.89
2.15
3.36
0.09
7.49
5.85
0.04
0.03
1.11
3.52
0.19
0.01
10.75
15.11
2.46
0.12
17.69
23.78
0.04
0.03
44.30
24.35
0.28
0.01
64.17
5.23
75.06
0.58
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.89
0.18
82.15
67.88
2.59
8.25
0.06
0.11
0.50
1.48
0.95
0.14
14.07
10.45
0.19
3.51
0.01
0.01
0.06
3.78
8.48
13.19
8.01
86.82
0.65
0.20
0.58
1.54
1.90
0.32
35.83
100.00
4
17
1
Electronic Appendix Supplementary Material 1: Distribution of species richness of terrestrial
2
mammals, amphibians, birds and vascular plants in relation to the total number species known
3
for Kenya. Species richness grouped into 10% classes (to a maximum of 70%), and displayed
4
as 25x25km grid cells.
5
6
18
1
Electronic Appendix Supplementary Material 2: Location of the 10 grid cells with highest
2
species richness (over all four taxonomic groups assessed), displayed as grey squares,
3
intersected by existing nature reserves.
4
19