I could have sworn I put this on here somewhere earlier? Anyway this is a copy of a post I put on the other forum this morning.
RE: White Rhino population growth (or not).
Upon reading and re-reading certain documents I am confused on some points surrounding the population growth rate of white rhino in KNP.
In Ferreira et al 2012
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0045989
it is stated that 2010 population estimate is 10621 white rhino in KNP.
In this currrent SANParks document:
http://www.sanparks.org/assets/docs/abo ... 7-2018.pdf
it is stated that annual average white rhino 'birth/growth rate' is 2%.
This is problematic. Firstly because in ecology birth rate and population growth rate are two different things. Birth rate is just that. Growth rate accounts for birth rate less morbidity. It is also problematic as it is significantly less than growth rates that have been widely quoted by Dr Mabunda and others over the last 2 years.
Can Sanparks clarify if the 2% growth rate is correct and if it accounts for management removals in addition to natural deaths?
This is important in light of the fact that: In the above published paper by Dr. Ferreira et al. it is stated that management removals determined by models around 'impeded ecological processes' are 4.4% of standing population at any time.
How many, if any, individuals have been removed for management purposes in 2011 and 2012?
What is the ongoing scientific assessment method used for managers to determine how many animals of which sex and age are removed at any time in a particular area?
In the Sanparks document referenced above it states a goal of keeping the incidence of poaching rates below the growth rate of white rhino.
Given that over 800 white rhino have been poached in KNP (that we know of) from 2011 to present then we are already over 400 animals in deficit over that time frame using Sanparks quoted growth rate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not particularly adept at mathematics so it is quite possible that I have overlooked something important here in the big picture. I would appreciate any other input that would clarify the numbers that I have been looking at above because on the face of it we are already going backwards
