A Survey of Information on the Zoological Biodiversity of SwazilandThis paper reviews the current knowledge on the faunal biodiversity of Swaziland. With the exception of the vertebrates, the animals of Swaziland have not been adequately surveyed. At least 14 phyla have been recorded, or are suspected to occur, within the boundaries of Swaziland. Of the invertebrate phyla, only the arthropods have received some attention from researchers and private collectors. In total, 265 families and approximately 1300 genera of arthropods have been recorded from Swaziland. The total number of species, however, remains unknown due to the taxonomic difficulties inherent in this diverse group. Furthermore, the arthropods have not been fully surveyed. In fact, the only arthropod order to have been intensively surveyed is that of the Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies). Basic surveys of most invertebrates are lacking, but are urgently required if effective programmes are to be developed for the conservation and maintenance of Swaziland’s biodiversity. A report Dr. Ara Monadjem
1.1. General Introduction 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Methodology 1.4. Brief description of Swaziland 1.4.1. Geography and climate 1.4.2. Nature reserves and game parks 2.
The Faunal Biodiversity of Swaziland 2.1. Non-arthropod invertebrates 2.1.1. Introduction 2.1.2. Diversity in Swaziland 2.1.3. Future emphasis 2.2. Arthropods 2.2.1. Introduction 2.2.2. Diversity in Swaziland 2.2.2.1.Insects 2.2.2.2. Arachnids 2.2.2.3. Other arthropods 2.2.3. Gaps in current knowledge 2.3. Vertebrates 2.3.1. Introduction 2.3.2. Diversity and distribution in Swaziland 2.3.2.1. Fish 2.3.2.2. Amphibians 2.3.2.3. Reptiles 2.3.2.4. Birds 2.3.2.5. Mammals 2.3.3. Future work on Swaziland’s vertebrates 2.4. Protozoans 3. Current Gaps in the Knowledge of Swaziland’s Biodiversity
3.1. Introduction 3.2. Major gaps 4. Actual and Potential Threats to Swaziland’s Biodiversity
4.1. Introduction 4.2. Global threats 4.3. Regional threats 4.4. Threats to Swaziland’s faunal diversity 4.4.1. Habitat destruction 4.4.2. Illegal hunting and over-exploitation 4.4.3. Impact of exotic species 5. Socio-Economic Importance of Swaziland’s Biodiversity 5.1. Maintenance of an ecologically healthy environment 5.2. Pharmaceutical importance 5.3. Pest control 5.4. Game farming 5.5. Cultural value 5.6. Aesthetics 5.7. Foreign exchange from tourism 6. Laws, Policies and Conventions affecting Swaziland’s Biodiversity
6.1. Introduction 6.2. Conventions 6.3. Acts of Parliament 6.4. Existing measures and programmes for biodiversity conservation Table 1. Summary of the number of families, genera and species in each animal
phylum recorded from Swaziland Table 2. Summary of the phylum Arthropoda in Swaziland Table 3. Summary of the class Insecta in Swaziland Table 4. Distribution of the Lepidoptera (class: Insecta) in Swaziland Table 5. Summary of the class Arachnida in Swaziland Table 6. Summary of the subphylum Vertebrata in Swaziland Table 7. Distribution of the vertebrates (subphylum: Vertebrata) in Swaziland
in relation to the four geographical regions Table 8. Distribution of the vertebrates (subphylum: Vertebrata) in Swaziland
in relation to aquatic and terrestrial
"ecosystems" Table 9. List of introduced species of vertebrates Table 10. The Acts of Parliament which pertain to, or impact on, the
maintenance of faunal diversity in Swaziland Figure 1. Map of Swaziland showing the four geographical regions Figure 2. Map showing the different vegetation types of Swaziland Figure 3. Map showing the location of nature reserves and game parks (both
public and private) within Swaziland Figure 4. Map showing the species richness of amphibians in Swaziland Figure 5. Map showing the species richness of reptiles in Swaziland Figure 6. Map showing the species richness of birds in Swaziland Figure 7. Map showing the species richness of mammals in Swaziland Appendix 1. List of species of nematodes (phylum Nematoda) and flatworms
(phylum: Platyhelminthes) recorded from Swaziland Appendix 2. List of species of molluscs (phylum: Mollusca), earthworms
(phylum: Annelida) and velvet worms (phylum: Onychophora) recorded from
Swaziland Appendix 3. List of insect families (phylum: Arthropoda, class: Insecta)
recorded from Swaziland Appendix 4. List of the species of butterflies and moths (phylum: Arthropoda,
class: Insecta, order: Lepidoptera) recorded from Swaziland Appendix 5. List of the genera of beetles (phylum: Arthropoda, class: Insecta,
order: Coleoptera) recorded from Swaziland Appendix 6. List of the species of dragonflies and lace wings (phylum:
Arthropoda, class: Insecta, orders: Odonata and Neuroptera) recorded from
Swaziland Appendix 7. List of species of spiders and ticks (phylum: Arthropoda, class:
Arachnida) recorded from Swaziland Appendix 8. List of species of crustaceans and myriopods (phylum: Arthropoda,
subphyla: Crustacea and Myriopoda) recorded from Swaziland Appendix 9. List of species of fishes (subphylum: Vertebrata, class:
Osteichthyes) recorded from Swaziland Appendix 10. List of species and subspecies of frogs (subphylum: Vertebrata,
class: Amphibia) recorded from Swaziland Appendix 11. List of species and subspecies of reptiles (subphylum:
Vertebrata, class: Reptilia) recorded from Swaziland Appendix 12. List of species of birds (subphylum: Vertebrata, class: Aves)
recorded from Swaziland Appendix 13. List of species of mammals (subphylum: Vertebrata, class:
Mammalia) recorded from Swaziland Appendix 14. Threatened butterfly and vertebrate species recorded from
Swaziland This paper reviews the current knowledge on the faunal
biodiversity of Swaziland. With the exception of the vertebrates, the animals of
Swaziland have not been adequately surveyed. At least 14 phyla have been
recorded, or are suspected to occur, within the boundaries of Swaziland. Of the
invertebrate phyla, only the arthropods have received some attention from
researchers and private collectors. In total, 265 families and approximately
1300 genera of arthropods have been recorded from Swaziland. The total number of
species, however, remains unknown due to the taxonomic difficulties inherent in
this diverse group. Furthermore, the arthropods have not been fully surveyed. In
fact, the only arthropod order to have been intensively surveyed is that of the
Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies). Basic surveys of most invertebrates are
lacking, but are urgently required if effective programmes are to be developed
for the conservation and maintenance of Swaziland’s biodiversity. Swaziland’s vertebrates have been well documented and, to
date, 813 species (445 genera in 144 families) have been recorded from the
Kingdom. However, at present, only the distribution and status of the country’s
birds are satisfactorily known. Although numerous potential threats to Swaziland’s
biodiversity exist, a thorough study of these threats and their impact is
missing. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that published Red Data Books do
not exist for any animal group in Swaziland. Threats to Swaziland’s faunal
diversity can be grouped into the following categories: 1) those that destroy or
alter the habitat, 2) illegal hunting, and 3) the impact of exotic species. The
socio-economic importance of maintaining biodiversity, with particular reference
to Swaziland’s fauna, is discussed. The Game Act of Swaziland is, if enforced,
a very powerful law. The Game Act provides protection for all species of birds
(except one), most of the mammals and two reptiles. None of the other species of
animals are protected by law in Swaziland. Swaziland is a signatory to CITES,
the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Lusaka Agreement. The Figures and Appendices noted in the Paper are not
included in this edition or presentation. This paper is divided into six main parts. The first part
(section 1) is the Introduction. The second part (sections 2 and 3) reviews the
existing knowledge on the faunal diversity of Swaziland and identifies current
gaps. The third part (section 4) discusses the threats to Swaziland's faunal
biodiversity. The fourth part (section 5) lists the socio-economic benefits to
Swaziland, and its people, of conserving the Kingdom's faunal biodiversity. The
fifth part (section 6) lists the conventions, laws and existing policies which
affect the animal diversity of Swaziland. The final part (the fourteen
appendices) is the inventory of Swaziland's faunal diversity based on existing
knowledge. The primary objective of this paper is to bring together the
lists of all species of animals known to occur, or to have occurred, in
Swaziland. The results of this inventory, together with that of Swaziland's
floral inventory (Kunene & Nkosi 1997), will be used to develop a National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Swaziland. This faunal inventory will not only provide a list of all the
species occurring in Swaziland, but will also help identify gaps in the
knowledge of Swaziland's biodiversity. Groups of animals which have been
partially surveyed, or not surveyed at all, will consequently be identified.
This will, hopefully, focus future research attention on these lesser known
groups. Although the primary objective of this report is the faunal
inventory, mention will also be made of the potential threats to, and the
socio-economic importance of, Swaziland's faunal biodiversity. Finally, a
section of this report will be dedicated to summarizing all laws, policies and
conventions which affect the maintenance of Swaziland's biodiversity. All the information presented here is based on work that has
already been done. Field work was not conducted and the inventory was compiled
from existing surveys. Some of the surveys conducted on Swaziland's fauna have
been published, but most exist as unpublished reports, University of Swaziland
(UNISWA) theses or lists kept by South African museums or private collectors.
All traced surveys, whether published or not, have been examined in this report.
The reliability of the identifications of the species made in each survey have
been discussed, and species listed in unreliable surveys have been omitted from
this inventory. Reliability was gauged by asking the following questions: 1)
what was the expertise of the person(s) who identified the specimens collected
during the survey? And were voucher specimens deposited in recognized museums?
If the identifier was an expert in that group of animals or the specimens were
deposited in a recognized museum, then the species were included in this
inventory. If not, then another question was asked: was the group that was
surveyed a taxonomically well known group, with keys available for the
identification of the species? If yes, then the species were included. If no,
then, the species mentioned in the survey were not included in the inventory
(although the survey was discussed and cited in the text). Since very few published studies have been conducted on
Swaziland's fauna, it was decided to reference all published literature
pertaining to Swaziland's fauna (regardless of whether or not the study was a
survey; i.e. published ecological papers, not bearing any direct relationship to
survey work, have also been cited). Unpublished reports and theses, however,
have only been cited if reporting on a survey. Species lists, due to their length, have been included as
appendices. Summaries of the total number of species in each phylum and family,
however, have been presented in the text for ease of reference. Where possible,
the geographical distributions of the different species are given. In most
cases, though, this has not been not possible as, even very basic distributional
information is lacking. Where possible, the distributions of the species are
given as occurring in the four geographical regions of the country, namely the:
Highveld, Middleveld, Lowveld and Lubombo regions (Goudie & Price Williams
1983; Figure 1). More detailed distributional information is available for the
vertebrate groups, and thus summaries of the number of these species that occur
in each of Swaziland's "ecosystems" have been presented. The
ecosystems have been broadly divided into aquatic and terrestrial (e.g. see
Table 8). The terrestrial ecosystems have been based on the vegetation types of
Goudie & Price Williams (1983; Figure 2). Where possible, the conservation status of each species is
also given. Swaziland, at this stage, does not have Red Data Books for any group
of organisms (with the exception of an unpublished Red Data Book for birds). For
this reason the conservation status of the different organisms were ascertained
by examining the South African Red Data Books (except in the case of bird
species). There is, of course, a danger with using the South African Red Data
Books in that species which are not be threaten in South Africa may well be
threatened with local extinct in Swaziland. However, until Red Data Books are
written for Swaziland's fauna, this is the best that can be done. Swaziland is a small landlocked southern African country
covering an area of 17 565 km2 (Goudie & Price-Williams, 1983).
Swaziland lies approximately between 25°45' and 27°18' S, and 30°08' and
32°08' E. Despite its small size, Swaziland is topographically diverse with
altitude ranging from 150 m to 1862 m above sea level (Goudie &
Price-Williams, 1983). Geographically, Swaziland can be divided into four
regions which run in a north-south plain (Figure 1): 1) the Highveld lies in the
west. The average altitude varies between 1050 m and 1400 m, but some peaks rise
above this level. Mean annual temperatures are cool (16°) and annual rainfall
high (about 1500 mm). The vegetation is mainly sour mountain grassland; 2) the
Middleveld lies between the Highveld and the Lowveld and the altitude ranges
mainly between 400 m and 1000 m. Temperatures are warmer and annual rainfall
lower (about 900 mm) than the Highveld. The predominant vegetation is open
savanna; 3) the Lowveld is situated at altitudes between 150 m and 400 m. Mean
annual temperature (22°) is the warmest and annual rainfall the lowest (500-600
mm) of the four regions. Acacia savanna covers most of this region; 4) the
Lubombo Mountains lie in the extreme east of the country and altitude ranges
between 400 m and 777 m. Mixed bushveld covers most of this region.
Climatically, the Lubombo region is very similar to the Middleveld region. There are a total of twelve protected conservation areas in
Swaziland (Figure 3). Three are controlled by the Swaziland National Trust
Commission (Malolotja, Hawane, Mlawula (including Ndzindza) and Mantenga Nature
Reserves). The other reserves are Mlilwane Game Reserve, Hlane National Park,
Mkhaya Game Reserve, Mhlosinga, Mbuluzi, Simunye, Phophonyane and Mutimuti
Nature Reserves. The control of Simunye Nature Reserve is in the process of
being taken over by Hlane National Park. There are numerous privately-owned
ranches that contain wild game but cannot be considered nature reserves or game
parks. More information on Swaziland’s nature reserves appears in the
Swaziland Environmental Action Pland (SEAP 1997). More detailed information on Swaziland's geography may be
obtained from the Atlas of Swaziland (Goudie & Williams 1983) and from
Vilakati's (1986) Junior Secondary Geography. This group of invertebrates includes the nematodes, molluscs,
earthworms, most of the parasites as well as other less-well known creatures
such as onychophorans (velvet worms). None of these groups have been fully
surveyed in Swaziland, although the earthworms and have been partially surveyed
(Reynolds 1993) as have the plant-parasitic nematodes (Muhoho, unpublished data)
and the mollucs (Chaine 1984). A single unpublished UNISWA thesis has reported
on animal-parasitic nematodes (Sithole 1994). The identifications made in the
latter study were not verified by an expert nematologist and, thus, lack
certainty. However, since it is the only study reporting on animal-parasitic
nematodes, it has been included in the inventory. A few specimens of molluscs
and onychophorans have been collected from Swaziland and deposited in the Natal
Museum (M. Hamer, personal communication). Swaziland’s non-arthropod invertebrates remain poorly known
and require urgent attention in the form of country-wide surveys. Plant-parasitic nematodes are currently being surveyed by
D.C. Muhoho. To date, 19 genera (in 11 families) have been identified (D.C.
Muhoho, unpublished data; Appendix 1). A further 4 genera of animal-parasitic
nematodes and a single genus of platyhelminth have been recorded by Sithole
(1994; Appendix 1). Three species of bilharzia flukes have been recorded from
the Kingdom (Chaine 1984). Seven species of earthworm from four families were collected
by Reynolds (1993; Appendix 2). Nine species of molluscs were collected from a
single location in the Lowveld in January 1964 (Appendix 2), and a further 15
species are mentioned in Chaine (1984; Appendix 2). A single species of
onychophoran has been recorded from Swaziland (Appendix 2). The total number of
species of non-arthropod invertebrates currently recorded from Swaziland
represents only small fraction of the actual diversity occurring in Swaziland
(Table 1). Most groups of non-arthropod invertebrates have never been
surveyed and, as such, even preliminary surveys (such as those conducted by
UNISWA students) should be encouraged. The plant-parasitic nematodes are
currently being surveyed by D.C. Muhoho, however, none of the other groups of
non-arthropod invertebrates (including non-plant-parasitic nematodes) are being,
or are planned to be, surveyed. The comments made in 2.2.3. (below) also apply
here. The arthropods are by far the largest phylum (in terms of
number of species as well as number of individuals) of animal or plant on the
Planet. The number of species of insects (which is the largest class in this
phylum) in southern Africa is estimated to lie some where between 43 000 and 80
000 or more (Scholtz & Chown 1995), compared to approximately 2 000
vertebrates. Due to this incredible diversity, the taxonomy of arthropods is
still far from being fully understood and new species are discovered almost
daily. In Swaziland, very little attention has been paid to its
arthropod diversity. G. Masina (UNISWA, Luyengo Campus) conducted a general
survey of the insect families and in particular insect crop pests (Masina,
unpublished notes). This survey has not been published and the specimens, housed
in the Malkerns Research Station, have not been properly attended to and have,
as a result, been damaged by pests (in most cases to the point where the
specimen has been completely eaten away). Thus, although it is possible to make
a list of the insect families represented in this collection, many of these
families will not be supported by any specimens making the verification of this
list impossible. However, since this is the only list available, it will be used
in this inventory. At the species level, very few orders of insects have been
surveyed. The most intensively surveyed order of insects is the Lepidoptera
(moths and butterflies). This has been as a result of the work of two
"amateur" collectors N. Duke (moths) and C. Saunders (butterflies). In
total, well over 40 0000 specimens of lepidopterans have been collected by these
two workers from Swaziland, making their combined contribution of great value.
Species lists for Malolotja and Mlawula Nature Reserves have been prepared by
these two workers. N. Duke has also collected specimens from two families of
beetles (Coleoptera) and has lists of species from several other groups:
Neuroptera (lace wings), Odonata (dragon flies), and cicadas (Hemiptera). C.N.
Magagula has collected specimens of coccinellid beetles from the Lowveld.
Surveys of the other insect groups has been restricted to crop pests (Masina,
personal communication). The only other arthropod group to have been surveyed is the
Arachnida (spiders and ticks). Two UNISWA students, Tsabedze (1991) and Dlamini
(1992), conducted surveys of spiders (Araneae) of Swaziland. Both these two
students had their spider collections identified by professional arachnologists
and thus their lists can be considered as accurate. A third student Methula
(1991) also conducted a spider survey, but was unable to have his specimens
identified and thus his list cannot be deemed reliable (at present there are no
keys to the spider species of southern Africa and thus the only way to have a
spider identified is to take it to a professional arachnologist). A small
collection of spiders from Swaziland has been deposited in the Natal (M. Hamer,
personal communication) and South African Museums (M. Cochrane, personal
communication), and probably the Transvaal Museum. However, the invertebrate
records of the latter museum have not been computerized and it was thus not
possible to locate Swaziland specimens. Finally, well-known South African
amateur arachnologist Astri Le Roy (together with her husband John) has made a
small collection of spiders from Mlawula and Malolotja Nature Reserves. Due to
taxonomic difficulties, most of the spiders collected from Swaziland have not
been identified beyond the level of genus. Swaziland’s ticks (Acari), probably due to their veterinary
importance, have received some attention from researchers (Theiler 1948; Callow
1989; Nxumalo 1989; Ramsay 1991; Wedderburn et al. 1991; Gallivan &
Surgeoner 1995; Gallivan et al. 1995). The study by Nxumalo (1989) exists as an
unpublished UNISWA thesis. Nowhere in the thesis was it mentioned how, or by
who, the tick species were identified. Furthermore, the tick specimens were not
deposited in any museum. As such the results of this survey are unreliable.
However, since only three species were recorded in this survey that were not
recorded in the others, it has been included in the inventory. The remaining groups of arthropods have never been properly
surveyed in Swaziland, although the occasional specimen has been collected and
deposited in Natal Museum (M. Hamer, personal communication). In conclusion, the only group of arthropods to have been
intensively surveyed are the moths and butterflies. For most of the other
arthropod groups, simple lists of species (or even genera or families) do not
exist. It is imperative that intensive surveys be conducted on this, the
largest, phylum of animals in Swaziland. The total number of described insect species occurring within
the boundaries of Swaziland is not known at present, but probably exceeds 10 000
species. In total, 222 families of insects have been collected from Swaziland
(Appendix 3; Table 2). Specimens from most of these families, however, were
deposited in G. Masina's collection which has been destroyed (see 2.2.1. above). The order Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) is represented
by 39 families, 801 genera and 1 654 species (Duke & Saunders, 1997;
Appendix 4; Table 3). Of these, nine families, 120 genera and 294 species are
butterflies, while 30 families, 681 genera and 1 435 are moths (Appendix 4). The
butterfly families have probably been fully surveyed with no more than a few
species having been overlooked. The moths, in contrast, although having been
surveyed intensively over the past 7 years, have only been partially surveyed,
with dozens of new species being recorded each year (N. Duke, personal
communication). Furthermore, the microlepidopterans, which may contribute over 1
000 species, have been omitted from this survey (N. Duke, personal
communication). The distribution of species richness of lepidopterans in
Swaziland is shown in Table 4, as are the number of species recorded from
Mlawula and Malolotja Nature Reserves. Three butterfly species recorded from
Swaziland are listed in the South African Red Data Book (Henning & Henning
1989; Appendix 14). The order Coleoptera (beetles) has been partially surveyed
(Appendix 5; Table 3). The cerambycids (67 species) and cetoniids (47 species)
have been surveyed by N. Duke (Duke & Saunders, 1997), while the
coccindellids (30 species) have been surveyed by C.N. Magagula (unpublished
data). Thus, in total, 147 species of beetle have been collected from Swaziland
by these two collectors. A further 124 genera (in 63 families) are housed (or
were housed in the past but have now been destroyed) in the insect collection at
Malkerns Research Station. Considering that beetles form the largest order of
living organisms (Scholtz & Holm 1985), the majority of Swaziland's species
have yet to be collected. As an indication of the size of the beetles, 2 500
species in 300 genera have been recorded from just one family (Curculionidae)
from southern Africa (Scholtz & Holm 1985). Thirty-three species of Neuroptera (in 6 families and 25
genera) have been recorded (Duke & Saunders 1997; Appendix 6; Table 3). This
list is almost certainly incomplete as several hundred species in 12 families
have been recorded from southern Africa (Scholtz & Holm 1985). Thirty-three species of Odonata (in 8 families and 21 genera)
have been recorded (Duke & Saunders; Appendix 6; Table 3). Specimens from a
further 3 families were housed in Malkerns Research Station in the past
(Appendix 3), but have subsequently been completely destroyed. The same comment
given on Neuroptera (above) applies here. The other orders of insects have not been surveyed (except
for those housed at Malkerns Research Station mentioned above; see 2.2.1.
above). However, a small collection (of 12 species) of cicadas (order:
Hemiptera) is listed by Duke & Saunders (1997), and a small collection of 14
species of flies (order: Diptera) are housed in the Natal Museum (M. Hamer,
personal communication). A total of 95 identified and approximately 33 unidentified
genera (approximately 128 genera in 39 families) of spiders have been collected
from Swaziland (Tsabedze 1991; Dlamini 1992; Le Roy, A in litt.; Appendix
7; Table 5). Only seven localities were covered by these two studies combined
and thus not much can be said about the geographical distribution of Swaziland's
spiders. In fact, a comprehensive survey of spiders of Swaziland is still
lacking. The true total of Swaziland's spider species probably lies somewhere
around 1 000 species. A spider survey of Swaziland is currently being conducted
by A. Monadjem. A total of 22 species (7 genera in 2 families) of ticks are
known from Swaziland (Callow 1989; Nxumalo 1989; Ramsay 1991; Gallivan &
Surgeoner 1995; Gallivan et al.1995; Appendix 7; Table 5). Future surveys on
this group of medical and veterinary importance will undoubtably result in the
discovery of additional species for the Kingdom. Two species of opilionids (harvestmen) and a single species
of scorpion and solifuge have been recorded from Swaziland (Appendix 7; Table
5). This represents only a fraction of Swaziland's true diversity. Surveys of
these groups are urgently needed. Only a handful of non-insect/non-arachnid arthropods have
been deposited in South African museums. In total, 6 species of crustaceans and
11 species of myriopods have been recorded from Swaziland (Appendix 8; Table 2).
A survey of the Crustacea and Myriopoda of Swaziland is long overdue. Swaziland's arthropods are generally poorly known. This is,
economically and ecologically, a very important group. Numerous species are
known to be commercial and agricultural pests, while others have been
successfully used as biocontrol agents. Arthropods are also important medically
(as vectors of disease for humans and livestock), pharmaceutically and
ecologically (Wilson 1992). For these reasons, intensive surveys of Swaziland's
arthropods need to be urgently conducted. The major problem with arthropod surveys in Africa (and
probably worldwide) is the lack of expertise in the form of taxonomists. There
are no professional arthropod taxonomists in Swaziland (and very few in southern
Africa). However, certain South African museum curators (responsible for insect
collections) have shown interest in conducting collaborative surveys of
Swaziland's arthropods. Their main restriction is funding. Thus, one possible
way of successfully surveying Swaziland's arthropod fauna would be to provide
funding to Swazi institutions (e.g. UNISWA or S.N.T.C.) for the surveys. The
surveys would be conducted by, for example, UNISWA students and staff. The
collected species would then be deposited in South African museums where they
would be identified by museum experts (for free). This route is preferable to
that of hiring foreign experts, for two reasons. Firstly, by making funds
available to Swazi researchers, this would stimulate interest in this neglected
field (of arthropod taxonomy and systematics) in Swaziland. This would ensure
the development of local expertise. Secondly, for logistic reasons, the costs of
supporting local researchers is far lower than that of foreign consultants. A
spider survey of Swaziland is currently being conducted in such a fashion by A.
Monadjem (although this survey has yet to attract funding). The vertebrates (Phylum Chordata) have been relatively well
documented in Swaziland. Included in this group are the fishes, amphibians,
reptiles, birds and mammals. The fishes of Swaziland were originally surveyed by Clay
(1976) and more recently, and thoroughly, by Hyslop (1994). Hyslop's (1994)
survey is comprehensive in the sense that few (if any) unrecorded species are
likely to be added to it. This latter survey, however, does not give
satisfactory accounts of the distribution of fish species within Swaziland.
Thus, some guessing had to be done in assigning fish species to the different
geographical regions. In addition to these Nation-wide surveys, the fishes of
Mlawula Nature Reserve (Dlamini 1985; Hyslop 1991), Malolotja Nature Reserve
(Mbuza 1986; Dlamini 1990) and the Usuthu Drainage System (Herbst 1991) have
also been surveyed. A few autecological studies have also been conducted on some
fish species in Swaziland (Hyslop 1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1989; Bhembe 1994; Dlamini
1994). The amphibians of Swaziland were first surveyed by Poynton
(1964) in a larger survey of amphibians of southern Africa. This survey,
however, was restricted to just a few localities and many species (that were
recorded later) were overlooked. The next survey of Swaziland’s amphibians was
published almost 30 years later (Boycott 1992a). The latter survey was later
combined with a survey of the country’s reptiles (Boycott 1992b, 1992c;
Boycott & Culverwell 1992). The distribution and status of Swaziland’s
reptiles are presently being revised (Culverwell & Boycott in prep.). The
biology of most of Swaziland’s (and indeed southern Africa’s) amphibians
and reptiles are poorly known, although a few articles have recently been
published on their ecology and distribution within Swaziland (Haagner &
Hurter 1988; Boycott 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1995a; Boycott & La Croix 1991).
Recently, the geographical distribution of Swaziland’s amphibians have been
analyzed in a regional context (Poynton & Boycott 1996). Unpublished lists
of the amphibians and reptiles of Malolotja and Mlawula Nature Reserves have
been prepared by R.C. Boycott. The birds of Swaziland were practically unknown prior to the
intensive 7-year survey by Parker (1992, 1994). This survey is regarded as one
of the most thorough vertebrate surveys of the southern African region, and has
contributed immensely to the knowledge of the distribution and abundance of
birds in Swaziland. Since the publication of this survey a new species of bird,
the Indian Mynah Acridotheres tristis (which is exotic to Africa), has
been recorded from Swaziland (Boycott 1995b). Bird lists have been published for
Malolotja and Mlawula Nature Reserves and the north-eastern region of Swaziland
(Anon 1987; Culverwell & Dodsworth 1987; Culverwell 1990). In addition to
the survey work, a few ecological studies have been conducted on other aspects
of Swaziland’s birds (Reilly & Wasdell 1965; Monadjem et al. 1994; Parker
1988; Robertson & Robertson 1989). The mammals of Swaziland have been, until recently, the most
neglected group of Swaziland’s vertebrates. Up to 1996, no published
information existed on Swaziland’s mammals and only two unpublished surveys
had been conducted at Malolotja Nature Reserve (Monadjem 1988, Sukati 1990) and
one at Mlawula Nature Reserve (Shabalala 1988). The specimens collected by
Monadjem (1988) were deposited in a museum. The collections of Sukati (1988) and
Shabalala (1988), however, were not deposited in a museum and there appear to
have been some mis-identifications in the two latter studies. The results of the
latter two studies have thus been omitted from the inventory. In addition, a
small collection of small mammals was collected by the Transvaal Museum from a
single location in the Lowveld in 1937 (the collected specimens were deposited
in the Transvaal Museum). A recent intensive 4-year survey has resulted in the
publication of a checklist of the mammals of Swaziland (Monadjem 1997a), and in
publications on mammalian distribution and ecology within Swaziland (Monadjem
1996a, 1997b, 1997c, in press a, in press b). In conclusion, although most vertebrate groups have been well
surveyed in Swaziland, information on the status and distribution of most
non-avian species is incomplete. This information, however is needed since it is
important for the development of an effective conservation programme for the
maintenance of the Kingdom’s biodiversity. A summary of the vertebrate diversity is shown in Table 6. In
total, 821 species (33 families in 4 classes) of vertebrates have been recorded
from Swaziland. A total of 51 indigenous species of fish from 10 families (in
23 genera) have been recorded from Swaziland (Hyslop 1994; Appendix 9). This
represents approximately 21% of the total number of species occurring in
southern Africa. The Lowveld and Lubombo regions support the highest number of
species (Table 7), while only 11 species have been recorded from the Highveld .
All 51 species have been recorded from rivers while 9 species have also been
recorded from dams (Table 8). In addition to the indigenous species, 6 exotic species have
been introduced to Swaziland (Table 9) although 2 of these species are currently
presumed extinct (Hyslop 1994). The exotic large mouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) and rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) are both
potentially harmful to indigenous populations of fishes (Skelton 1987), but
fortunately neither appear to survive as viable populations in Swaziland's
rivers (Hyslop 1994). Four of Swaziland's species are listed in the southern
African fish Red Data Book (Skelton 1987) as regionally threatened. However,
more species are certainly threatened locally within Swaziland (Hyslop 1994). A
Red Data Book for Swaziland's fishes is desperately required. Forty-four species of frogs (23 genera in 8 families) have
been recorded from Swaziland (Boycott 1992; Boycott personal communication;
Appendix 10), which represents over 25% of the southern African species. Most of
Swaziland's frogs are restricted to aquatic environments (Table 8), however, a
small number of species (from the genus Breviceps) survive and breeding
away from water. Ephemeral pans (which fill up, or dry up, seasonally) and
swamps/marshes support over half the number of species. The Lowveld and Lubombo
regions support the highest number of species (Table 7). The distribution of
species richness of frogs within Swaziland is shown in Figure 4 Of the 44 species, 35 species have been recorded from nature
reserves (Boycott unpublished data), and none are included in the South African
Red Data Book: reptiles and amphibians (Branch 1988). Frogs, however, are very
sensitive to changes in their environment. Slight changes in water pH or
temperature can cause rapid and significant changes in frog distributions, and
common species have gone extinct within a matter of years following barely
perceptible ("insignificant") environmental changes. In total 111 species of reptile (59 genera in 16 families)
have been recorded from Swaziland (Boycott 1992; Boycott & Culverwell 1992;
R. Boycott, personal communication; Appendix 11). The Lowveld supports the
highest number of species, followed by the Highveld and then the Middleveld and
Lubombos (Table 7). This distribution of species diversity is probably an
artifact relating to the fact that the J. Culverwell and R. Boycott live (or
lived) in the Lowveld and Highveld respectively. Further collecting of reptiles
in the Middleveld and Lubombos will undoubtably increase the totals for these
regions, however, it is likely that the present totals for the Highveld and
Lowveld represent the actual diversity of reptiles in these two regions. The
distribution of species richness of reptiles within Swaziland is shown in Figure
5. Although several species of reptile (such as crocodiles and
terrapins) live in aquatic environments, the majority are terrestrial (Table 8).
The largest number of species are found in savannas, while forests support the
fewest species. The sour grassveld of the Highveld, however, supports the
highest number of restricted species (i.e. species that are found in one
ecosystem only). Nineteen species of reptile only occur in (or have only been
recorded from) sour grassveld, compared to 3 species restricted to savanna
(Table 8). Thus, the Highveld sour grassveld is of importance for the
conservation of reptiles in Swaziland. Of the 111 reptile species, 93 species have been recorded
from nature reserves (R. Boycott, personal communication; Table 8). Thus, over
83% of all of Swaziland's reptiles are known to occur within the Kingdom's
conservation areas. Nine species are listed on the South African Red Data Book:
reptiles and amphibians (Branch 1988; Table 14). The status of these species
need to be assessed within the Kingdom. In total, 489 species of birds (in 23 orders and 77 families)
have been recorded from Swaziland (Parker 1994; Appendix 12). The recent arrival
of the exotic Indian Mynah raises the total to 490 species. This represents over
50% of the bird species recorded from southern Africa. The Lowveld and Middleveld regions support the highest number
of breeding species, while the Highveld region supports the lowest number (Table
7). This pattern is unlikely to be due to sampling error, as the different
regions were sampled with equal intensity (Parker 1994). The Lowveld and
Middleveld regions are more species rich than the Highveld and Lubombos. This,
however, does not mean that the Highveld and Lubombo regions are less important
for the conservation of Swaziland's birds. In fact, the species composition of
the bird communities of the different regions (especially the Highveld and
Lowveld) are very different (Parker 1994) i.e. many bird species that are found
in the Highveld do not occur in the Lowveld and vice versa. The
distribution of species richness of birds within Swaziland is shown in Figure 6. As for reptiles, the savanna ecosystem supports the highest
total number of bird species, and the highest number of restricted species
(Table 8). Although the number of species of birds inhabiting impoundment,
swamp, forest and sour grassveld ecosystems is relatively low, the number of
species restricted to these ecosystems is high (Table 8). These four ecosystems
are thus of particular importance for the conservation of Swaziland's birds. Of the bird species breeding within Swaziland, only 28 have
not been recorded from a nature reserve or protected area (V. Parker,
unpublished data; Table 7). However, of the 489 bird species, 51 species are
listed in Swaziland's Red Data Book as locally threatened (Parker 1994; Appendix
14). Thus, over 10% of Swaziland's bird species are, to varying degrees, in
danger of going locally extinct. Three species have already gone locally extinct
(Parker 1994; Appendix 14). A total of 119 species of mammals (86 genera in 33 families)
have been recorded from Swaziland (Monadjem 1997a; A. Monadjem, unpublished
data; Appendix 13). This represents approximately 40% of the terrestrial mammal
species recorded from southern African. Although, Swaziland's mammals have been
intensively surveyed, the number of species of bats recorded to date almost
certainly does not represent Swaziland's true diversity of bat species. A
further survey of Swaziland's bats is being currently conducted by A. Monadjem. The Lowveld supports the highest number of mammal species,
while the other three regions support approximately equal numbers (Table 7). As
for birds, however, the species composition of mammals from the different
regions are quite different (Monadjem 1997b). The distribution of species
richness of mammals within Swaziland is shown in Figure 7. The present
distribution of Swaziland's large mammals (e.g. ungulates, elephants, rhinos,
etc.) does not reflect their historical distributions as these species have been
exterminated from Swazi Nation Land and are now restricted to game and nature
reserves, and certain privately-owned farms (Monadjem in prep.). The greatest diversity of mammal species occurs in the
savanna ecosystem, while the savanna and sour grassveld ecosystems support the
highest number of restricted species (Table 8). Of the 119 mammal species, 28 species are listed on the South
African Red Data Book: terrestrial mammals (Smithers 1986; Appendix 14), while
105 species have been recorded from nature reserves within the country (Monadjem
in prep.; Table 8). The latter figure is probably an underestimate as some
species of small may have been overlooked in the Kingdom's nature reserves. At
least two species of Swaziland's mammals have gone locally extinct (Monadjem in
prep.; Appendix 14). Red Data books (stating the conservation status of each
species within the country) need to be developed and written for all vertebrate
groups. A Red Data Book of Swaziland's birds has been written but still needs to
be published (V. Parker, personal communication). Aquatic environments are constantly coming under greater
stress. For example, more pollutants are being pumped into, while more water is
extracted out of, our rivers than just a few years ago. Certain fish and frog
species could be monitored as indicators of the natural health of our river
systems. For this to be possible, further basic research on the distribution and
abundance of Swaziland's fishes and frogs is required. In many parts of southern Africa fish are source of cheap
protein, while fish farming is a rapidly growing sector of agriculture in South
Africa (Skelton 1993). Support for research on the farming potentials of
Swaziland's indigenous species (e.g. such as those conducted by UNISWA students
under the guidance of J.O Tetteh and F. Magagula) may prove fruitful. A very worrying issue at present, is the apparent worldwide
decline in frog numbers. The conservation of biodiversity is in effect the
conservation of viable populations in natural environments. Hence, research on
the response of frog populations to changing environmental conditions will
provide essential information. Biological surveys are always important since the
distribution and abundance of organisms are continually changing. However, for
most of Swaziland's vertebrates the emphasis needs to shift away from survey
work to studies focussing on the genetic constitution of various populations,
the dynamics of local populations, community ecology and biogeographical
analysis. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, survey work will still be
necessary, especially for the monitoring of threatened species. Very little research has been conducted on the diversity and
distribution of this group in Swaziland, and almost all of it has been on
parasitic protozoans. In the Kingdom, human intestinal parasites have been
surveyed by Chaine (1985), and tick-borne diseases affecting livestock by Callow
(1989) and Ramsay (1991). The Malaria Unit of Swaziland is responsible for the
monitoring of malaria throughout the country. A survey of the non-parasitic,
free-living protozoans has yet to be conducted. Table 1: Summary of the number of families, genera and species in each animal
phylum recorded from Swaziland Phylum Survey status Protozoa Partially surveyed See section 2.4 Coelenterata Never surveyed - Platyhelminthes Partially surveyed see Appendix 1 Nematoda Partially surveyed see Appendix 1 Rotifera Never surveyed - Acanthocephala Never surveyed - Mollusca Partially surveyed see Appendix 2 Annelida Partially surveyed see Appendix 2 Tardigrada Never surveyed - Onychophora Never surveyed see Appendix 2 Bryozoa Never surveyed - Arthropoda Partially surveyed see Appendices 3-8 Chordata Well surveyed see Appendices 9-13 Table 2: Summary of the phylum Arthropoda in Swaziland Included are the
number of families, genera and species in recorded in each arthropod group. Crustacea see Appendix 8 Insecta see Appendix 3-6 Arachnida see Appendix 7 Myriopoda see Appendix 8 Table 3: Summary of the class Insecta in Swaziland Included are the number
of families, genera and species in recorded in each insect order. See Appendix 3
for the source of this information. Order Thysanura Ephemeroptera Odonata Orthoptera Phasmatodea Mantodea Blattodea Isoptera Dermaptera Embioptera Mallophaga Anoplura Hemiptera Neuroptera Coleoptera Mecoptera Trichoptera Lepidoptera Diptera Hymenoptera Siphonaptera Table 4: Distribution of the Lepidoptera (class: Insecta) in
Swaziland Listed below are the number of species recorded from each region as well as
Mlawula and Malolotja Nature Reserves (the latter two reserves are combined as
"reserves"). Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of species
recorded only from that particular region. This information is taken from Duke
& Saunders (1997). Superfamily Butterflies Geometroidea Bombycoidea Sphingoidea Notodontoidea Noctuoidea Others Total Table 5: Summary of the class Arachnida in Swaziland Included are the number
of families, genera and species in recorded in each arachnid order. See Appendix
7 for the source of this information. Order Araneae Solifugae Opilionida Scorpionida Acari Table 6: Summary of the subphylum Vertebrata in Swaziland Included are the
number of families, genera and species in each vertebrate order. Introduced
orders are indicated by (I). See Appendices 9 to 13 for the source of this
information. Class and order Fish Anguilliformes Mormyriformes Cypriniformes Characiformes Siluriformes Salmoniformes (I) Perciformes Amphibians Anura Reptiles Crocodylia Chelonii Squamata Birds Struthioniformes Podicipediformes Pelecaniformes Ciconiiformes Phoenicopteriformes Anseriformes Falconiformes Galliformes Gruiformes Charadriiformes Columbiformes Psittaciformes Musophagiformes Cuculiformes Strigiformes Caprimulgiformes Apodiformes Coliiformes Trogoniformes Alcediniformes Coraciiformes Piciformes Passeriformes Mammals Macroscelidea Insectivora Chiroptera Primates Pholidota Lagomorpha Rodentia Carnivora Tubulidentata Proboscidea Hyracoidea Perissodactyla Artiodactyla Table 7: Distribution of the vertebrates (subphylum: Vertebrata) in Swaziland
in relation to the four geographical regions Listed below are the number of
species recorded from each region as well as Mlawula and Malolotja Nature
Reserves (the latter two reserves are combined as "reserves"). Numbers
indicate the number of species recorded only from that particular region. The
number of bird species in each region (indicated by 1) refers to the
number of species breeding in each region (and not to the total number
recorded). See Appendices 9 to 13 for the source of this information. Class Fish Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals Table 8: Distribution of the vertebrates (subphylum: Vertebrata) in Swaziland
in relation to aquatic and terrestrial "ecosystems" Listed below are
the number of species recorded from each ecosystem. Numbers in parentheses
indicate the number of species restricted to that particular ecosystem. The
information presented here was obtained from Hyslop (1994), Boycott (1992b),
Parker (1994) and Monadjem (1997). Ecosystem Aquatic 1) Rivers 2) Impoundments 3) Ephemeral pans 4) Swamps Terrestrial 1) Forest 2) Sour grassveld 3) Sweet grassveld 4) Savannah 5) Mixed bushveld Table 9: List of introduced (exotic) species of vertebrates obtained from
Hyslop (1994), Parker (1994) and Monadjem (1997) Class and family Genus and species Fish Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Salmonidae Onychorhynchus mykiss Salmo trutta (E) Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu Micropterus salmoides Leopomis macrochirus (E) Birds Sturnidae Acridotheres tristis Ploceidae Passer domesticus Mammals Muridae Rattus rattus Figure 1: Map of Swaziland showing the four geographical regions Figure 2: Map showing the different vegetation types of Swaziland Figure 3: Map showing the location of nature reserves and game parks (both
public and private) within Swaziland Figure 4: Map showing the species richness of amphibians in Swaziland Figure 5: Map showing the species richness of reptiles in Swaziland Figure 6: Map showing the species richness of birds in Swaziland Figure 7: Map showing the species richness of mammals in Swaziland This report has dealt almost exclusively with species as the units of
biodiversity. Biodiversity, however, does not only refer to species diversity.
Biodiversity encompasses all forms of biological variation, both structural and
functional, from genetic differences within and between populations to species,
communities and landscapes (Wilson 1992). Almost nothing is known about genetic
variation within species in Swaziland. Information on variation between
populations, communities and landscapes within Swaziland also require to be
ascertained. Most of the gaps existing in the knowledge of Swaziland’s faunal diversity
have been dealt with in section 2 (above). For each phylum or class of animals,
it was mentioned which groups had been surveyed and which had not. To avoid
duplication, that information will not be reproduced here; instead, a broad
overview will be attempted. Vertebrates are probably the most conspicuous and familiar group of animals.
Vertebrates as a group have been surveyed reasonably well, although information
on many groups within the vertebrates is scanty (this is discussed in more
detail in section 2.3.3). The rest of the animals, often collectively known as
the invertebrates, are far more diverse, but far less familiar, than the
vertebrates. Swaziland’s invertebrates are virtually unknown. Apart from a few
notable exceptions (mentioned in section 2.2), most invertebrate groups remain
completely unsurveyed. At least half of the phyla existing in Swaziland have
never been surveyed (see Table 1). Even the partially surveys of some phyla
(e.g. the arthropods) have only scratched the surface. For example, the total
number of arthropod genera listed for Swaziland is approximately 1 300 which
probably only represents _ of the true diversity (considering that over 7 700
genera of insects (which represent just one, albeit the largest, class of
arthropods) alone are known from southern Africa). And yet, the arthropods are
probably the best surveyed of the invertebrate phyla. No serious attempt has been made to assess the threats to Swaziland's
biodiversity. As mentioned earlier, no Red Data Books exist for Swaziland's
fauna or flora (with the exception of an unpublished Red Data Book on Swaziland’s
birds by V. Parker). Red Data Books perform a very important function in that
they not only list threatened species within a particular group, but they also
discuss the threats facing those species and the group in general. Without Red
Data Books, it becomes very difficult to accurately assess the threats to
Swaziland's biodiversity. Studies, however, have been conducted on South
Africa's biodiversity situation (Ledger 1991; Yeld 1993), and many of these
findings may be applicable to Swaziland. Thus, the threats mentioned here are
based mainly on the South African situation (although, where literature exists
on Swaziland's threatened species, this has been referred to). McNeely et al. (1990) have listed and discussed in detail the global
threats to biodiversity. Included in this category are factors such as the
rapidly increasing human population whose needs will soon outstrip the
biological resources of this Planet; global warming and climate change; the
threat of nuclear war and nuclear disasters (such as the one at Chernobyl); and
international trade in endangered species and species products. Regional threats to the biodiversity of Swaziland include factors such as
atmospheric pollution (Tyson et al. 1988); over-extraction of water from
rivers which have their sources in South Africa; cross-border smuggling of
indigenous species and species products. It is difficult to catalogue the threats to Swaziland's biodiversity, since
almost every human activity, from collecting firewood to building houses and
from keeping cattle to irrigation farming, impinge, in one way or another, on
biodiversity. The different activities, however, do not all have the same
impact. The difficulty arises when trying to order the different threats
according to their potential impact. The philosophy adopted here is sustainable
development rather than strict preservation. Sustainable development, in this
context, means development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Yeld
1993). Implicit in this definition, however, is the maintenance of biodiversity
and the maintenance of essential ecological processes and life-support systems. What will be attempted here is to develop a framework within which threats to
Swaziland's biodiversity may be studied in the future. It is generally easier to
identify the factors that are directly responsible for biodiversity erosion
(e.g. illegal hunting) than it is to recognize the root causes of the problem
(e.g. poverty) which are usually political or economical in nature. The loss of
biodiversity will not be stemmed until the roots causes are addressed. In this
report, however, only the former (i.e. the factors directly responsible) will be
listed. A more detailed analysis of the threats to Swaziland's biodiversity will
be conducted as the second phase of the National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan, during which time the root causes of this loss will be identified. The threats facing Swaziland’s fauna can be grouped into the broad
categories discussed below. Habitat destruction is probably the most important factor leading to the
decline and, ultimately, the extinction of animal populations the world over.
Habitat destruction has best been publicized by the clear-cutting of tropical
forests. However, habitat destruction can be, and usually is, much more subtle.
Any alteration to the natural "abode" of a species that negatively
affects populations of that species is referred to as habitat destruction. As
mentioned above (in section 4.1), very little research attention has been
directed towards the conservation status of Swaziland’s fauna. Swaziland’s
vertebrates are better known than its invertebrates, and hence most of the
examples given below will be of vertebrates. This must not be understood to
suggest that the vertebrates are more important (and hence deserve more
conservation attention) than invertebrates. It simply is a reflection of our
lack of knowledge of the diversity and status of the invertebrates. Habitat destruction may take on any of the following forms. Illegal and uncontrolled hunting has resulted in the extermination of most of
Swaziland's large mammals, especially on Swazi Nation Land (Monadjem, in
preparation). By the late 1950s, numerous species of mammals had been hunted to
extinction, although most of these species have now been reintroduced to nature
and game reserves (Reilly 1985; Reilly & Reilly 1994; Monadjem in
preparation). However, at least two species of mammal (Lichtenstein's hartebeest
Alcelaphus lichtensteinii and the wild dog Lycaon pictus) and one
species of bird (Kori Bustard Ardeotis kori), which were hunted to
extinction (Appendix 14), have not been reintroduced to the Kingdom. Many species of animals are claimed to have medicinal values and other powers
and are thus heavily exploited by local Tinyanga. An urgent study is required to
determine the effects of such exploitation on the fauna of Swaziland. Many species of vertebrates are killed for food and/or superstition. For
example, most snakes detected by Swazis are killed on the spot, despite the fact
that only a very small proportion of the Kingdom's species are venomous (and
despite the fact that snakes play many important ecological roles e.g. control
of pest populations). Introduced (exotic) species often survive and increase rapidly in new
environments due to the fact that their natural predators are missing. These
introduced species can have a significant impact on the ecosystems into which
they have been introduced. For example, the exotic fish rainbow trout Onychorhynchus
mykiss and large mouth bass Micropterus salmoides can have
devastating effects on local fish populations in southern Africa (Skelton 1987;
de Moor & Bruton 1988). Both these species occur in Swaziland, where their
impacts have yet to be studied. The introduction of alien plants can have considerable impact on the natural
vegetation (Macdonald & Jarman 1985), which in turn can affect animal
populations e.g. butterflies (Henning & Henning 1989). Recent literature abounds on the importance of the maintenance of the World’s
biodiversity, and will, consequently, not be discussed here; for a review of
this subject, see chapter 13 in Wilson (1992). What will be attempted here is a
summary of the possible and probable socio-economic benefits (to the people of
Swaziland) accruing from Swaziland’s animal diversity. These benefits can be
lumped into broad categories which are discussed below. What needs to be
remembered, in the discussion below, is that extinction is forever. We cannot
recreate a species once that species has gone extinct. We often perceive environments undisturbed by humans as either
"clean" (e.g. a mountain stream in Malolotja Nature Reserve) or
fertile, and this is often true . The reason for this is that in these
undisturbed areas, the natural ecological processes have not been disrupted. It
is these ecological processes that ensure that the environment remains healthy.
Wise exploitation of these ecosystems will not result in their deterioration.
Reckless and uncontrolled exploitation, however, will destroy these fragile
ecosystems. What is often forgotten (or not known) is that it is the presence of
the biota (animals and plants) in the environment that are responsible for the
maintenance of the ecological processes that keep the environment healthy. Thus,
the extermination of even a few species could result in the decay of the health
of the environment. In conclusion, then, the maintenance of our biodiversity is
essential for the maintenance of a healthy environment. Many species of plants and some species of animals are known (by science and
by tradition) to contain chemicals of medical importance. Scientifically, this
is a very recent field and only a very tiny proportion of southern Africa’s
biodiversity has been prospected for medically important chemicals (Wynberg
& Laird). This process of biodiversity prospecting is, in all likelihood,
going to be an ongoing activity for the next few centuries. Seen in this light,
even the most obscure creature suddenly becomes important. As an hypothetical
example, the loss a species of beetle may mean the loss of a cure for AIDS.
Hence, we cannot afford to loose a single species since we do not know whether
chemicals of medical importance are harboured by that species or not. Most, if not all, agricultural and industrial pests have natural predators.
In the natural habitat, the pest’s predator(s) limits the population of the
pest. In fact, in natural habitats it is unusually to observe "pests".
In agricultural environments, and especially in commercial monocultures, the
natural predator-prey relationships have been destroyed. In the past sixty (and
especially in the past thirty) years, pesticides have been used to control pest
populations. These pesticides have been used at great financial and
environmental costs, and in many cases have failed to eradicate the problem.
More environmentally friendly methods of agriculture (e.g. permaculture) are now
emphasizing the recreation of the natural habitats within which "pest"
populations would be controlled by natural predators. In order to be able to do
this, of course, the species comprising the natural habitats must be maintained. In the past 20 years, game farming has replaced cattle ranching in many parts
of southern Africa. This has occurred for purely economical reasons i.e. game
farming is more profitable. Indigenous game (e.g. antelope such as impala and
kudu) are far more suited to surviving in Africa’s drier, marginal landscapes
(such as Swaziland’s Lowveld) than are cattle. Not only do these indigenous
species survive better during droughts, which are a natural phenomenon in these
areas, but they are less susceptible to diseases, require far less water and do
not impact negatively on the vegetation. Cattle in these environments, in
contrast, are a burdened on society and the environment. The fact that game
farming is potentially financially profitable, should have encouraged Lowveld
farmers to investigate this alternative option. Although, many privately-owned
ranches have now turned to game farming in Swaziland, this has not happened on
Swazi Nation Land. A very encouraging example for Swaziland to learn from, is
that of the CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous
Resources) programme developed in Zimbabwe for the upliftment of rural
communities through the wise exploitation of populations of indigenous game
(Child & Peterson 1991). In the effected communities, illegal hunting has
been reduced to a negligible amount since the communities realize (both
intellectually and financially) the benefits of conserving wildlife species.
This is in stark contrast to the situation in Swaziland, where an antelope
straying onto Swazi Nation Land is immediately hunted down and killed. The Swazi Culture is strongly rooted in the Kingdom’s environment. Thus,
for example, traditional attire for men include emajobo which are made
out of the hide of antelope and other mammals. Emajobo, however, can only
be made if the appropriate mammal species still exist. Extermination of these
mammals will result in the "extinction" of emajobo. It is often said that a "hungry man will think only of his
stomach". This may well be true for a truly starving person. However, even
the poorest people derive pleasure from beautiful scenery or natural wonders.
Unfortunately, many Swazi’s have not been given the opportunity to enjoy, and
hence develop an interest in, Swaziland’s diverse fauna. Future generations
may not forgive the present generation if the spectacular beauty of Swaziland
(which includes its biodiversity) is destroyed for short-term gains. Eco-tourism is one of the biggest developing industries in South Africa. In
1996, a whole issue of the journal African Wildlife and Environment was
dedicated to eco-tourism in southern Africa (Volume 50, Issue 3). More and more
tourists are visiting southern Africa to experience "Wild Africa"
where elephants and lions roam the savannas, or to observe the regions
biodiversity (e.g. bird watching). Tourism, if exploited wisely, can bring in
foreign exchange. Tourists would not only pay for their accommodation in the
country’s reserves and parks (which would support the existence of these
parks), but they would also inject money into the economy by buying souvenirs
and other locally manufactured goods. Tourism would, thus, also create job
opportunities. Swaziland has an incredible eco-tourism potential which is, as
yet, hardly tapped. Due to its variability in topography and climate, Swaziland
offers a large number of contrasting landscapes: from the Highveld grasslands,
to montane forests and savannas in very close proximity of each other. The
promotion of eco-tourism should be high on the Government’s list of
priorities. To effectively conserve Swaziland’s biodiversity, appropriate laws (both
national and international) must be in place, and must be enforced. Swaziland’s
laws concerning the protection of most of its vertebrate animals are among the
strongest in Africa. The various laws and conventions pertaining or affecting
the maintenance of Swaziland’s animal diversity are discussed below. It should
be noted that Swaziland does not yet have a Biodiversity Policy (SEAP 1997),
although a draft policy does appear in the final draft of SEAP. Three conventions are of particular importance to the maintenance of
Swaziland’s faunal (and also floral) diversity. These are the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES: 1973),
the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio: 1992), and the Lusaka Agreement on
Cooperative Enforcement Operations Directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and
Flora (Lusaka Agreement: 1994). The first two conventions are international
conventions while the latter is a regional convention (incorporating eight
southern and east African countries). Furthermore, the Lusaka Agreement works
within the CITES framework. Swaziland is a signatory to all three conventions
(CITES, Rio and Lusaka Agreement). A fourth convention, The Ramsar Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands
(Ramsar: 1971), is not really applicable, since Swaziland is not able to become
a party to that convention. [This is due to the fact that signatories to this
convention must have at least one wetland of international significance. Certain
criteria must be met for the wetland to be ranked as being of international
importance, and none of Swaziland’s wetland’s meet these criteria]. Two other conventions (Framework Convention of Climate Change; and Convention
to Combat Desertification) may partially impact on the faunal diversity of
Swaziland. All the above-mentioned conventions and their implications for the
conservation of Swaziland’s environment are discussed in detail in SEAP
(1997). All acts of Parliament pertaining to the environment are reviewed in SEAP
(1997). The acts of Parliament which pertain to, or impact on, the maintenance
of Swaziland’s faunal diversity are listed in Table 10. Of particular
significance is the Game Act of 1953 (which was practically replaced in 1991 and
slightly amended in 1993). This Act provides for the harsh punishment of illegal
hunting. In the case of illegal hunting of Specially Protected Game (which
includes both species of rhino, elephant and lion) the offender, if found
guilty, is liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine (Section 8). In
the case of the illegal hunting of Royal Game (which includes nearly all medium
and large-sized mammals and all birds except for Helmeted Guineafowl Numida
meleagris which, incidentally, has been incorrectly recorded as the Crowned
Guineafowl Numida mitrata) the guilty offender is liable to pay a fine of
up to E30 000 or spend up to five years in prison. Furthermore, the Non-Bailable
Offences Order of 1993 cites the contravention of Section 8 ("Prohibition
of hunting and dealing in specially protected and royal game") of the Game
Act as a non-bailable offence. Thus persons charged with illegal hunting are not
granted bail. Since the passing of the amendments of 1991 there has been a concomitant
decrease in poaching in the Big Game Parks (T.E. Reilly, personal
communication). It would thus appear that the revitalized Game Act is serving
its function (which is the protection of wild game). The Game Act, however, does
not list (and therefore does not protect) any species of reptiles (other than
crocodiles and pythons), amphibians, fish or invertebrates. These latter groups,
thus, do not currently enjoy any formal protection in Swaziland. The Protection of Fresh Water Fish Act of 1937 provides some protection to
indigenous species of fish by stipulating a "close season" during
which time fishing is not permitted (Section 3), and also by prohibiting the
capture of fish by certain destructive means (Sections 8 and 9). However, no
formal protection is given to specially threatened species or species whose
populations within Swaziland are currently on the decline. Certain sections of the Plant Control Act of 1981 make reference to animals.
Part II, III, IV, VIII and IX outline measures to control pests and the
importation of alien (exotic) species. Section 14 of the Act prohibits the
importation of Second Schedule items which includes inter alia all alien
animals. Since alien species are often a threat to the indigenous fauna and
flora (see section 4.4.3), this section of the Act, if enforced, should
contribute positively towards the maintenance of Swaziland’s biodiversity. The National Trust Commission Act of 1972 allows for the establishment of
National Parks and Nature Reserves. The objectives of these parks and reserves
are outline in Section 15 of the Act and include the promotion and conservation
of indigenous animals and plants and the protection of the natural ecology and
environment of the park or reserve. These parks and reserves are to be
controlled and supervised by Swaziland National Trust Commission (Section 6).
The establishment of this Commission is mentioned in Section 3. Activities that
are destructive to the existence of these parks and reserves (as set out in the
Objectives in Section 15) are prohibited. Prohibited activities are listed in
Section 20 and include, among many others, the killing or injuring of plants and
animals, and the removal of any object from within the park or reserve. The Swaziland Environment Authority Act of 1992 is concerned mainly with the
maintenance of a healthy and ecologically functioning environment. Thus, this
Act affects the maintenance of Swaziland’s biodiversity in the sense that it
ensures that the environment, and hence the habitat of many indigenous plants
and animals, is not destroyed. The functions and responsibilities of the
Swaziland Environment Authority (established in Section 4) are listed in Section
5 and include the setting of standards relating to the pollution of air, water
and land, and the monitoring and control of any environmental pollution. A comprehensive review of all existing programmes for biodiversity
conservation can be found in SEAP (1997) and will thus not be repeated here. At
present, there is no form of ex-situ conservation for Swaziland’s
animals. There are no public zoos, snake parks, butterfly farms, etc in the
country. These forms of conservation are not just important for the short-term
survival of threatened species within the Kingdom, but are also money
(job)-generating activities which could have a positive influence on the
economy. Furthermore, zoos (and other ex-situ conservation developments)
often play an important role in the education of the general public. Swaziland has a number of nature reserves (see section 1.4.2) which play an
important role in in-situ conservation. These reserves are distributed
throughout the Kingdom and thus most of the major vegetation types are
represented in this reserve network. Over 70% of the Kingdom’s vertebrates
have been recorded from at least one reserve (see Table 7), suggesting that a
large proportion of Swaziland’s fauna may enjoy formal protection in these
reserves. It is not, however, known whether the populations of these species
(within reserves) are sufficiently large to prevent extinction from stochastic
events (such as inbreeding depression or the sudden spread of a fatal disease). Table 10: The Acts of Parliament which pertain to, or impact on, the
maintenance of faunal diversity in Swaziland Principal Acts Ministry/Department involved 1) Wild Birds Protection Act, No. 45 of 1914 Ministry of Agriculture 2) Protection of Fresh Water Fish Act, No. 75 of 1937 - Fresh Water Fish Regulations of 1937 (amended 1952 and replaced 1973) Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Fisheries 3) Game Control Act, No. 37 of 1947 Ministry of Agriculture 4) Game Act, No. 51 of 1953 (amended 1964, 1968, 1991 and 1993) Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Broadcasting, S.N.T.C. 5) The Non-Bailable Offences Order of 1993 Ministry of Justice Acts of partial relevance 6) The National Trust Commission Act of 1972 - The National Trust Commission Regulations of 1972 Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Broadcasting, S.N.T.C. 7) The Swaziland Environmental Authority Act of 1992 Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Broadcasting, S.N.T.C. 8) The Flora Protection Act, No. 45 of 1952 (amended 1974) Ministry of Agriculture 9) Plant Control Act, No. 7 of 1981 (which replaced The Plant
Protection Act of 1959) Ministry of Agriculture With the exception of the vertebrates, the animals of Swaziland have not been
adequately surveyed. At least 14 phyla have been recorded, or are suspected to
occur, within the boundaries of Swaziland. Of the invertebrate phyla, only the
arthropods have received some attention from researchers and private collectors.
In total, 265 families and approximately 1300 genera of arthropods have been
recorded from Swaziland. The total number of species, however, remains unknown
due to the taxonomic difficulties inherent in this diverse group. Furthermore,
the arthropods have not been fully surveyed. In fact, the only arthropod order
to have been intensively surveyed is that of the Lepidoptera (moths and
butterflies). Basic surveys of most invertebrates are lacking, but are urgently
required if effective programmes are to be developed for the conservation and
maintenance of Swaziland’s biodiversity. Swaziland’s vertebrates have been well documented and, to date, 813 species
(445 genera in 144 families) have been recorded from the Kingdom. However, at
present, only the distribution and status of the country’s birds are
satisfactorily known. Although numerous potential threats to Swaziland’s biodiversity exist, a
thorough study of these threats and their impact is missing. Exacerbating the
situation is the fact that published Red Data Books do not exist for any animal
group in Swaziland. Threats to Swaziland’s faunal diversity can be grouped
into the following categories: 1) those that destroy or alter the habitat, 2)
illegal hunting, and 3) the impact of exotic species. There are many socio-economic benefits to be gained (by Swazi’s) from
maintaining the Kingdom’s biodiversity. The following include inter alia
some of the important functions performed by (or potential benefits to be gained
from) Swaziland’s faunal biodiversity: The Game Act of Swaziland is, if enforced, a very powerful law. The Game Act
provides protection for all species of birds (except the Helmeted Guineafowl),
most of the mammals and two reptiles. None of the other species of animals are
protected by law in Swaziland. Swaziland is a signatory to CITES, the Convention
on Biological Diversity and the Lusaka Agreement. Anon. 1987. A bird checklist for Malolotja Nature Reserve,
Swaziland. Swaziland National Trust Commission, Manzini. Bhembe W. 1994. The preliminary studies on the trophic
relationships of the fish community in Mlawula River. Unpublished
thesis, University of Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Boycott, R.C. 1990a. Chamaesaura anguina: Size, reproduction
and susceptibility to fire. J. Herp. Assoc. Afr. 37: 49. Boycott, R.C. 1990b. Nucras lalandii: Reproduction. J. Herp.
Assoc. Afr. 37: 49. Boycott, R.C. 1990c. Nucras lalandii: Geographical
distribution. J. Herp. Assoc. Afr. 37: 57. Boycott, R.C. 1992a. New amphibian records for Swaziland. Durban Mus.
Novit. 17: 64-70. Boycott, R.C. 1992b. An annotated checklist of the amphibians and
reptiles of Swaziland. The Conservation Trust of Swaziland, Mbabane. Boycott, R.C. 1993c. A herpetofaunal survey of Swaziland.
Unpublished thesis, University of Natal, Durban. Boycott, R.C. 1995a. Notes on the distribution and ecology of Amblyodipsas
concolor (A. Smith, 1849) in Swaziland (Serpentes: Colubridae). Afr.
J. Ecol. 33: 417-419. Boycott, R.C. 1995b. First report of the Indian Myna in Swaziland. Birding
in Southern Africa 47:34. Boycott, R.C. & Culverwell, J.B. 1992. Swaziland Herpetofauna - a
preliminary synthesis. J. Herp. Assoc. Afr. 40: 38-41. Boycott, R.C. & La Croix, N. 1991. Hildebrandtia ornata ornata:
Geographical distribution. J. Herp. Assoc. Afr. 39: 19. Branch, W.R. (ed.) 1988. South African Red Data Book - Reptiles and
Amphibians. South African National Scientific Programmes Report 151,
CSIR, Pretoria. Bruwer, C. 1987. Rationale for determining the impact of water resources
development on river ecosystems. In: Bruwer, C. (ed.), Proceedings
of a Workshop on the Flow Requirements of the Kruger National Park rivers.
Department of Water Affairs; Pretoria. pp. 21-37. Callow, L.L. 1989. Epidemiology and control of ticks and tick borne
diseases in Swaziland. Unpublished report for Government of Swaziland. Cambray, J.A., Alletson, D.J., Kleynhans, C.J., Petitjean, M.O.G. and
Skelton, P.H. 1989. Flow requirements for fish. In: Ferrar, A.A.
(ed)., Ecological Flow Requirements for South African Rivers. South
African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 162: 71-93.; Pretoria. Chaine, J.P. 1984. Schistosomiasis prevalence and control in the Kingdom
of Swaziland. Bilharzia Control Unit, Ministry of Health, Swaziland. Chaine, J.P. 1985. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in Kingdom of
Swaziland. Bilharzia Control Unit, Ministry of Health, Swaziland. Child, B. & Peterson, J.H. 1991. CAMPFIRE in rural development.
The Beit Bridge experience. Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Management, Zimbabwe. Clay, D. 1976. An investigation into the distribution of fish in
Swaziland. Rev. Zool. Afr. 90: 547-548. Culverwell, J. 1990. Bird checklist. Mlawula Nature Reserve.
Swaziland National Trust Commission, Lobamba. Culverwell, J. & Dodsworth, G. 1987. A bird checklist for
north-eastern Swaziland. Natural History Society of Swaziland, Mbabane. de Moor, I.J. & Bruton, M.N. 1988. Atlas of alien and translocated
indigenous aquatic animals in southern Africa. South African National
Scientific Programmes Report 144, CSIR, Pretoria. Dlamini, G. 1994. Gonadal development and fecundity of some common
fish in Mlawula River. Unpublished thesis, University of Swaziland,
Kwaluseni. Dlamini, K.C. 1989. Fish populations in Mlawula Nature Reserve.
Unpublished thesis, University of Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Dlamini, M.D. 1992. Determination of the species composition of the
spider fauna in certain areas of Swaziland. Unpublished thesis,
University of Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Dlamini S.M. 1990. Fish populations in Malolotja Nature Reserve.
Unpublished thesis, University of Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Gallivan, G.J. & Surgeoner, G.A. 1995. Ixodid ticks and other
ectoparasites of wild ungulates in Swaziland: regional, host and seasonal
patterns. S. Afr. J. Zool. 30: 169-177. Gallivan, G.J., Culverwell, J., Girdwood, R.
& Surgeoner, G.A. 1995. Ixodid ticks of impala (Aepyceros
melampus) in Swaziland: effect of age class,
sex, body condition and management. S. Afr. J.
Zool. 30: 178-186. Goudie, A.S. & Price Williams, D. 1983. The Atlas of Swaziland.
The Swaziland National Trust Commission. Occasional Paper No. 4. Haagner, G.V. & Hurter, J. 1988. Additional Distribution Records of
the Berg Adder Bitis atropos in the South-eastern Transvaal and
Swaziland. Koedoe 31: 71-76. Henning, S.F. & Henning G.A. 1989. South African red data book -
butterflies. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 158,
CSIR, Pretoria. Herbst, I. R. 1991. Identification and aspects of the biology of fish
species in the Usushwana River, and a comparison between species found in
the Mkondvo and Great Usuthu Rivers. Unpublished thesis, University of
Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Hyslop, E.J. 1987a. Aspects of the biology of Labeo molybdinus
from the Mlawula Game Reserve, Swaziland. Swazi. J. Sci. Technol. 8
:11-16. Hyslop, E.J. 1987b. A comparison of the growth parameters of Barbus
mariquensis Smith 1841 from rivers in the lowveld and highveld regions
of Swaziland. Swazi. J. Sci. Technol. 8: 34-39. Hyslop, E.J. 1988. The growth of Hydrocynus vittatus from the Van
Eck Dam, Big Ben. Swaz. J. Sci. & Tech. 9: 21-25. Hyslop, E.J. 1989. Aspects of the biology of Labeo molybdinus from
Mlawula Game Reserve, Swaziland. Swaz. J. Sci. & Tech. 10: 11-16. Hyslop, E.J. 1991. Ichthyofauna of Mlawula Nature Reserve, Swaziland. Afr.
J. Ecol. 29: 261-265. Hyslop, E.J. 1994. An annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of
Swaziland. The Conservation Trust of Swaziland, Mbabane. King, J., De Moor, F., Botha, A. & Coetzer, A. 1989. Water quantity
requirements of invertebrates, macrophytes and other mesobiota. In:
Ferrar, A.A. (ed.), Ecological Flow Requirements for South African Rivers. South
African National Scientific Programmes Report. 162, CSIR, Pretoria. pp.
57-70. Kunene, I.S. & Nkosi, B.S. 1997. A Survey of Information on the
Botanical Biodiversity in Swaziland. Swaziland Government / United Nations
Development Programme Report. Ledger, J. 1991. Biodiversity: the basis of life. South Africa's
endangered species, In: Cock, J. & Koch, E (eds) Going Green.
People, politics and the environment in South Africa. Oxford University
Press, Cape Town. Macdonald, I.A.W. & Jarman, M.L. 1985. Invasive alien plants in the
terrestrial ecosystems of Natal, South Africa. South African National
Scientific Programmes Report. 162, CSIR, Pretoria. McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R., Reid, W.V., Mittermeier, R.A. & Werner,
T.B. 1990. Conserving the World's biological diversity. IUCN. Methula, D.N. 1991. A preliminary study of Araneae species in selected
sites in Manzini and Lubombo regions of Swaziland. Unpublished thesis,
University of Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Monadjem, A. 1988. The small mammals of Malolotja Nature Reserve.
Unpublished report for the Swaziland National Trust Commission. Monadjem, A. 1996. The effects of additional food on the demography of
rodents in a subtropical grassland in Swaziland. Mammalia 60:
785-789. Monadjem, A. 1997a. An annotated checklist of the mammals of
Swaziland. The Conservation Trust of Swaziland, Manzini. Monadjem, A. 1997b. Habitat preferences and biomasses of small mammals in
Swaziland. Afr. J. Ecol. 35: 64-72. Monadjem, A. 1997c. Stomach contents of 19 species of small mammals from
Swaziland. S. Afr. J. Zool. 24: 47-51. Monadjem, A. In press a. Biomass of rodents at Mlawula Nature Reserve. UNISWA
Res. J. Agric., Sci. & Tech. Monadjem, A. In press. Altitudinal variation in body size characteristics
of two species of murid rodents. UNISWA Res. J. Agric., Sci. & Tech. Monadjem, A. In prep. Distribution patterns and conservation status of
the mammals in Swaziland, southern Africa. Monadjem, A., Passmore, N.I., Kemp, A.C. 1994. Territorial calls of
allopatric and sympatric populations of two species of Pogoniulus
tinkerbarbet in southern Africa. Ostrich 65:339-341 Nxumalo, R.N. Tick infestation of cattle in the Mahlanya and Mhlatuze
areas. Unpublished thesis, University of Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Parker, V. 1988. Vultures in Swaziland. Vulture News 20: 8-11. Parker, V. 1992. Swaziland bird checklist. The Conservation Trust
of Swaziland, Mbabane. Parker, V. 1994. Swaziland bird atlas 1985-1991. Websters,
Mbabane. Parker, V. In prep. Swaziland red data book: birds. Poynton, J.C. 1964. The Amphibia of southern Africa: a faunal study. Ann.
Natal Mus. 17: 1-334. Poynton, J.C. and Boycott, R.C. 1996. Species turnover between
Afromontane and eastern African lowland faunas: patterns shown by
amphibians. J. Biogeogr. 23: 669-680. Prendini, L., Theron, L.J., Van der Merwe, K., & Owen-Smith, N. 1996.
Abundance and guild structure of grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) in
communally grazed and protected savanna. South African Journal of Zoology
31: 120-130. Ramsay, G. 1991. The epidemiology of tick-borne diseases in Swaziland.
Unpublished report of Ministry of Health, Swaziland. Reilly, T.E. 1985. The Mlilwane story. A history of nature
conservation in the Kingdom of Swaziland and fund raising appeal. The
Mlilwane Trust, Mbabane. Reilly, T.E. & Wasdell, B. 1965 Marabou stork (Leptoptilus
crumeniferus (Lesson) breeding in Swaziland. Ostrich 36: 96. Reilly, T.E. & Reilly, L. 1994. The lion roars again. Hlane
Royal National Park. Reynolds, J.W. 1993. On some earthworms from Swaziland (Oligochaeta:
Glossoscolecidae, Megascolecidae, Microchaetidae and Octochaetidae). Megadrilogica
5: 1-8. Robertson, A. & Robertson, L. 1989. Viewing vultures across
boundaries. Vulture News 22: 60. Scholtz, C.H. and Chown, S.L. 1995. Insects in southern Africa: how many
species are there? S. Afr. J. Sci. 91: 124-126. Scholtz, C.H. & Holm, E. 1985. Insects of southern Africa.
Butterworths, Durban. Sithole, A.D. 1994. Alimentary canal parasites of small mammals.
Unpublished thesis, Unversity of Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Skelton, P.H. 1987. Southern African red data book: fishes. South
African National Scientific Programmes Report 137, CSIR, Pretoria. Skelton, P.H. 1993. A complete guide to the Freshwater fishes of
southern Africa. Southern Book Publishers, Halfway House. Smithers, R.H.N. 1986. South African red data book - terrestrial mammals.
South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 125, CSIR,
Pretoria. Sukati, C.V. 1990. Small mammals of Malolotja Nature Reserve.
Unpublished thesis, University of Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Swaziland Environmental Action Plan. 1997. Vol. 1 & 2. Government of
Swaziland/United Nations Development Programme. (Draft report). Theiler, G. 1948. Zoological survey of the Union of South Africa: Tick
survey - Part I. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Ind. 23: 217-231. Tsabedze, B.M. 1991. A preliminary determination of Araneae species
found in the Highveld and Lowveld of Swaziland. Unpublished thesis,
University of Swaziland, Kwaluseni. Tyson, P.D., Kruger, F.J. & Louw, C.W. 1988. Atmospheric pollution in
the eastern Transvaal Highveld. South African National Scientific
Programmes Report 150, CSIR, Pretoria. Vilakati, S.S. 1986. Macmillan Junior Secondary Geography.
Macmillan Boleswa, Manzini. Yeld, J. 1993. Caring for the Earth. South Africa: a strategy for
sustainable living. Southern African Nature Foundation, Stellenbosch. Wedderburn, P.A., Jagger, T.D. McCartan, B. & Hunter, A.G. 1991.
Distribution of Boophilus species ticks in Swaziland. Trop. Anim.
Hlth. Prod. 23: 167-171. Wilson, E.O. 1992. The diversity of life. Penguin Books, London. Wynberg, R. & Laird, S. 1997. The scramble for genes. Biodiversity
prospecting in South Africa. Africa, Environment and Wildlife 5(3):
53-59. This page was last updated on 18 February 2004 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||