Red List of South African Species

Alternatively, Explore species
| National Red List categories | Partners |
Near Threatened (NT)
Assessors: Yvette Ehlers-Smith Sam Williams
Contributors: Claire Relton Ian Rushworth Samantha Page
Reviewers: Matthew Child

Rationale

This species is restricted to forest patches within northeastern South Africa and Swaziland. They can occur at densities as high as 1 individual / ha. In KZN, there are an estimated 3,046–4,210 individuals in protected areas alone, with the largest subpopulation of 1,666–2,150 individuals occurring in iSimangaliso Wetland Park (2012–2014 counts; Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife unpubl. data). This subpopulation is inferred to have remained stable or increased over three generations (2000–2015), as the previous assessment (2004, using count data from 2002) estimated subpopulation size as 1,000 animals. While no other provincial subpopulation estimates are available, they are regularly recorded on camera traps in the Soutpansberg Mountains of Limpopo and the Mariepskop forests of Mpumalanga, including on private lands outside protected areas (S. Williams unpubl. data). Reintroductions are probably a successful conservation intervention for this species. For example, reintroduced individuals from the 1980/90s are still present in areas of southern KZN and are slowly moving into adjacent farmlands (Y. Ehlers-Smith unpubl. data). The estimated area of occupancy, using remaining (2013/14 land cover) forest patches within the extent of occurrence, is 1,800 km2. This yields a total mature population size of 17,996–89,979 animals based on minimum and maximum densities. This may be an overestimate as not all patches are suitable or will be occupied.


As long as habitat is conserved through protected area expansion and biodiversity stewardship schemes, this species should continue to be stable within protected areas. However, suitable forest habitat continues to be lost in all areas of its range. For example, 20% of woodland cover was lost from 1990 to 2006 in the Soutpansberg Mountains region due to fuelwood extraction and pine/Eucalyptus plantations; and, in just six years (2005–2011), 7.6% of KZN’s natural habitat was lost (1.3% / annum), due primarily to agriculture expansion. Poaching pressure may also cause local declines. While the area of occupancy (AOO) of 1,800 km2 may be an underestimate as it does not include thicket habitats, not all patches will be occupied due to poaching pressure. Thus, we list the species as Near Threatened B2ab(ii,v) due to inferred ongoing loss of suitable habitat and severe hunting pressure outside of protected areas. Suitable habitat is severely fragmented by land conversion and degradation. Further field surveys from across its range, especially outside protected areas, are needed to more accurately measure population size through more comprehensive density and occupancy data. Long-term monitoring should also be used to assess subpopulation trends, especially outside protected areas. This species should be reassessed as such data become available.


Regional population effects: There are discrete subpopulations in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces. Although the KZN subpopulation occurs in highly fragmented forest patches, there are likely to be linkages and dispersal routes with Mozambique, such that the rescue effect is possible for KZN, but its rarity in southern Mozambique means no significant rescue effects are anticipated. Continued research into the dispersal capabilities and current distribution is required to confirm this assumption.

Distribution

The Natal Red Duiker formerly occurred widely in coastal and riverine forests and thickets, escarpments and montane forests from southeastern Tanzania southwards to northeastern KZN in South Africa (East 1999; Hoffmann & Bowland 2013), but currently has a disjunct distribution. There are no confirmed records of this species from Zimbabwe or Zambia (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2016). Although this species is restricted to specialised habitats of forests and dense thickets, and fragmentation of its distribution is a natural phenomenon, this species has experienced extensive range contraction as a result of habitat alteration (Skinner & Chimimba 2005). In Mozambique, this species has a discontinuous distribution north and south of the Zambezi River. There are occurrence records in a number of isolated inland areas towards the Maputo Elephant Game Reserve (Skinner & Chimimba 2005), but their current presence in southern Mozambique needs to be confirmed. Previous records of this species in Zambia and Malawi (East 1999; Skinner & Chimimba 2005) are now considered to belong to Harvey’s Duiker (Cephalophus harveyi; Hoffmann & Bowland 2013).

Within the assessment region, the species occurs along the eastern regions of South Africa, from the far northern stretches of KZN along the coastal areas in forest and bushveld, as well as in forest fragments in Mpumalanga and Limpopo (Soutpansberg) provinces. Although no records are available, they occur in scattered pockets of riverine thickets and forests of the lowveld region in Swaziland (Monadjem 1998). Similarly, known subpopulations in South Africa are currently very fragmented due to the patchy nature of suitable habitat. Until recent times, their distribution extended as far south as Pondoland (Eastern Cape – southern KZN) (Fitzsimons 1920; du Plessis 1969, and expanded across much larger proportions of Limpopo and Mpumalanga (Skinner & Chimimba 2005). Within the extent of occurrence, there are an estimated 1,800 km2 of suitable forest habitat remaining in 2013/14 (GeoTerraImage 2015), which we construe as a proxy for AOO. This, however, may be an overestimate as they do not occur in southern Pondoland Scarp forests and probably do not occur in mistbelt forests (Y. Ehlers-Smith unpubl. data). In KZN, they are probably restricted to lowland coastal, dune and sand forests where there is a grassland-forest mosaic where they move between patches as they often feed on the edges of forests but will ruminate in dense cover (Y. Ehlers-Smith unpubl. data). Further habitat selection data are needed to more accurately estimate AOO.

In the late 1980s, several reintroductions had been made into their former range (Bourquin & van Rensburg 1984; Bowland 1990). For example, they were reintroduced to Mpenjati Nature Reserve, as well as San Lameer Golf Estate, a farm near Upper Melville and in Umzumbe during the late 1980s/early 1990s. While recent camera-trap surveys (2014–2016; Y. Ehlers-Smith unpubl. data) failed to detect Natal Red Duiker on Mpenjati, they appear to have radiated outwards as they have been photographed at low density in nearby farms (for example, forest patches on sugar cane farms) and villages (Y. Ehlers-Smith unpubl. data). The viability of these reintroductions are currently being assessed.

Population trend

Trend

The Natal Red Duiker is known to reach relatively high numbers in suitable habitats (Bowland 1997). For example, in St Lucia, KZN, this species was recorded at densities ranging from 1–2 animals / ha (Bowland 1990). However, in less favourable areas, such as smaller forest clumps, estimates of 0.2–0.4 animals / ha were recorded (Bowland 1990). Although a global population estimate of 42,000 was documented by East (1999), due to the cryptic nature of this species, this was expected to be an underestimate. Globally, the population trend of this species is believed to be declining. However, wildlife recovery across much of Mozambique is likely to include this species (East 1999; Hoffmann & Bowland 2013), although the Natal Red Duiker is still considered to be highly threatened in Mozambique, hampering potential dispersal into South Africa.

Within the assessment region, it is suspected that the population has declined significantly following large-scale decline in the habitat (through timber plantations and cane sugar crops) in the past but appears to have stabilised more recently (Rowe-Rowe 1994). However, mining in northern KZN has had a negative impact on local populations. The population is largely confined to extensive protected areas (for example, iSimangaliso Wetland Park; Ramesh et al. 2016) and is unlikely to decline in the future within these protected areas. There are suspected to be 6–9 major subpopulations although we are missing data from several regions in KZN, Limpopo and Mpumalanga. In 2004, it was estimated that there were four major subpopulations where the iSimangaliso Wetland Park contained 1,000 animals and Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park contained 300 animals (Friedmann & Daly 2004). An assessment conducted between 2011 and 2012 estimated at least 4,210 individuals in seven formally protected areas in KZN, with 2,150 animals in the largest subpopulation in iSimangaliso Wetland Park and 1,200 in Mkhuze Game Reserve (Ezemvelo-KZN Wildlife unpubl. data). More recently (2013/14), there were estimated to be 3,046 animals on eight formally protected areas in KZN, the largest of which is iSimangaliso Wetland Park with 1,666 animals and 600 on Mkhuze Game Reserve (Ezemvelo-KZN Wildlife unpubl. data). Generation length is estimated as 5.2 years (Pacifici et al. 2013), yielding a three–generation period of 15.5 years (2000–2015). While no reliable long-term data are available to measure population trends over this period, estimates from 2004 and 2014 indicate that the major subpopulation in iSimangaliso Wetland Park has at least remained stable over approximately three generations. Overall, using the AOO estimate of 1,800 km2 and maximum/minimum densities (20–100 animals / km2), we estimate a population of 35,992–179,958 animals. As they mainly occur solitarily or a female with her offspring or in small groups (3–5 individuals) in loose association (Skinner & Chimimba 2005), we assume a c. 50% mature population structure, which yields 17,996–89,979 mature animals. Research to estimate population size in the southern extent of its range is underway (Y. Ehlers-Smith unpubl. data).

Individuals are still present in areas of reintroduction in southern KZN and are slowly moving into adjacent areas. For example, they were introduced in Mpenjati Reserve in the late 1980s/early 1990s, but have been found on a forest patch within a sugar cane farm as they have radiated outwards (Y. Ehlers-Smith unpubl. data). In the Soutpansberg region of the Limpopo Province, this species is common along the forested southern slopes (Power 2002) and are suspected to be numerous on private lands. However, in many areas, subpopulations outside of protected areas are suspected to be declining due to ongoing habitat loss, bushmeat hunting and illegal sport hunting with dogs. More research is necessary to determine population size and trends in such areas. 

Threats

Due to its strict habitat speciality, the Natal Red Duiker is vulnerable to habitat modification, and, as a result, has disappeared from much of its historic range. It has experienced extensive habitat loss, due to expanding development of property, subsistence agriculture and commercial timber plantations (Bowland 1997). Large proportions of their former habitat in the Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces have been altered. In the inland tropical forest areas, large proportions of mesic natural forest have been cleared for plantations, and in the drier regions for agriculture, especially for sugar cane crops. Sand forest habitat continues to be lost west of False Bay Park, KZN, from pineapple crops (I. Rushworth pers. comm. 2016). Afforestation with exotic timber plantations and crop agriculture is continuing to reduce habitat for this species. The decline in habitat in the coastal forest of northern KZN has previously been estimated at being in excess of 70% (Mathias & Bourquin 1984). Expanding urban development along the KZN coastline is likely to become an increasing threat in the future, as much of this development is encroaching on suitable forest and dispersal routes of Natal Red Duiker habitats.

Additionally, this species is vulnerable to hunting pressure; as with the Blue Duiker (Philantomba monticola) hunting with dogs is a threat to all small antelope (sensu Grey-Ross et al. 2010). Informal or bushmeat hunting has the potential to cause local declines or extinctions too. There is suspected to be severe pressure from sport hunting with dogs and bushmeat hunting outside of protected areas; for example, in the Maputaland area of KZN (I. Rushworth pers. comm. 2016).

Ineffective management of livestock and game farms where overgrazing is common does not appear to have a major detrimental impact on Natal Red Duikers, as overgrazing tends to lead to an increase in the density of woody plants (bush thickening), which is actually beneficial to forest duikers that have a preference for shelter and browse resources. 

Uses and trade

Although this species is used for trophy hunting, trade is unlikely to have any effect on the population as long as permits are well regulated. This species is targeted by international trophy hunters, as one of the “Tiny 10” small antelope. It is also hunted as bushmeat extensively throughout its range and is common in bushmeat markets (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2016), the effects of which may cause local declines or extinctions within the assessment region. In Mozambique, this species was recognised as a preferred species for illegal bushmeat hunting (de Boer & Baquete 1998).

Conservation

The Natal Red Duiker is present within a number of South Africa’s protected areas, including iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, Ndumo Game Reserve, Enseleni Nature Reserve, Kenneth Stainbank Nature Reserve and Tembe Elephant Park in KZN (East 1999; Hoffmann & Bowland 2013), Blyde River Nature Reserve in Mpumalanga, Happy Rest Nature Reserve and Luvhondo Private Nature Reserve in Limpopo Province (S. Williams unpubl. data). Much of the habitat alteration has already taken place and much of what habitat remains is currently protected in existing reserves. Some of the previous pressure that was exerted on the species may be reduced as some communities convert areas to conservation (for example, around Tembe Elephant Reserve). However, ongoing habitat loss and poaching pressure outside protected areas should be mitigated through further protected area expansion, both formally, such as through transfrontier areas (Smith et al. 2008); and through biodiversity stewardship programmes. Landowners should also create conservancies to sustain functioning and protected subpopulations of this species and to connect habitats, especially along the coast. As the species causes habitat degradation outside of its natural range, regulation of translocation is also required to prevent extralimital introduction. However, reintroduction into suitable areas within the natural range should be continued and documented to improve reintroduction technique. 

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:
  • Continued monitoring of the subpopulations within existing conservation areas.
  • Enforcement of translocation regulations.
Research priorities:Current ongoing research by the University of KZN in collaboration with Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife includes the impacts of changing land-use on biodiversity, particularly mammals such as Natal Red Duiker, using camera trapping to investigate the metapopulation dynamics of forest mammals in the fragmented sub-tropical coastal forests of southern KZN. 
  • Recent population sizes and trends from KZN, Mpumalanga and Limpopo protected areas; and surveys to improve the understanding of population estimates of various subpopulations. 
  • Collate evidence for successful reintroductions to improve translocation success. 
  • Occupancy and subpopulation trends on private lands. 
  • Further taxonomic work is needed to investigate the status of this species relative to Harvey's Red Duiker.
Encouraged citizen actions:
  • Report sightings on virtual museum platforms (for example, iSpot and MammalMAP), especially outside protected areas. 
  • Create conservancies to connect habitat patches.
  • Report illegal hunting to provincial conservation authorities.

References 

[@book{275,
 address = {Cambridge},
 author = {Skinner, J.D. and Chimimba, C.T.},
 publisher = {Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom},
 title = {The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{275,
 author = {Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C.},
 journal = {Nature Conservation},
 pages = {87–94},
 title = {Generation length for mammals},
 volume = {5},
 year = {2013}
}
,@book{570,
 address = {Parkview, South Africa},
 author = {Friedmann, Y. and Daly, B.},
 publisher = {Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN) and Endangered Wildlife Trust},
 title = {Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment},
 year = {2004}
}
,@techreport{3326,
 address = {Pretoria},
 author = {GeoTerraImage},
 title = {Quantifying settlement and built-up land use change in South Africa},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{9077,
 author = {Jewitt, D., Goodman, P.S., Erasmus, B.F.N., O’Connor, T.G. and Witkowski, E.T.F.},
 journal = {South African Journal of Science },
 pages = {1--9},
 title = {Systematic land-cover change in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Implications for biodiversity},
 volume = {111},
 year = {2015}
}
,@book{16484,
 address = {Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK},
 author = {East, R. (compiler)},
 publisher = {IUCN},
 title = {African Antelope Database 1998},
 year = {1999}
}
,@book{16484,
 address = {Pietermaritzburg, South Africa},
 author = {Rowe-Rowe, D. T.},
 publisher = {Natal Parks Board},
 title = {The ungulates of Natal},
 year = {1994}
}
,@article{16484,
 author = {Grey-Ross, R,Downs, C.T., and Kirkman, K. },
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {43--52},
 title = {An assessment of illegal hunting on farmland in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: implications for oribi (Ourebia ourebi) conservation},
 volume = {40},
 year = {2010}
}
,@inbook{30208,
 address = {Baltimore, USA},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {Artiodactyla},
 editor = {Grubb, P.},
 pages = {637–722},
 publisher = {Johns Hopkins University Press},
 title = {Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed)},
 year = {2005}
}
,@book{30209,
 address = {Mbabane, Swaziland.},
 author = {Monadjem A},
 publisher = {Conservation Trust of Swaziland and Big Games Parks},
 title = {The mammals of Swaziland},
 year = {1998}
}
,@inbook{112168517,
 address = {Cape Town, South Africa.},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {Striped mouse <i>Rhabdomys pumilio</i>},
 editor = {De Graaf, G.},
 publisher = {Struik Publishers},
 title = {The Complete Book of Southern African Mammals},
 year = {1997}
}
,@inbook{4143,
 address = {London},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {<i>Philantomba monticola</i> Blue Duiker},
 editor = {Hart, J.A. and Kingdon, J.},
 pages = {228--234},
 publisher = {Bloomsbury Publishing},
 title = {The Mammals of Africa. Volume VI: Pigs, Hippopotamuses, Chevrotain, Giraffes, Deer and Bovids},
 year = {2013}
}
,@phdthesis{4143,
 author = {Bowland, A.E.},
 school = {University of Natal},
 title = {The ecology and conservation of blue duiker and red duiker in Natal},
 year = {1990}
}
,@article{4143,
 author = {Bowland AE, Perrin MR},
 journal = {Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {487--498},
 title = {Temporal and spatial patterns in blue duikers <i>Philatomba monticola</i> and red duikers <i>Cephalophus natalensis</i>},
 volume = {237},
 year = {1995}
}
,@book{4144,
 address = {London, UK},
 author = {Kingdon, J.},
 publisher = {Academic Press},
 title = {East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution in Africa},
 year = {1982}
}
,@inbook{4144,
 address = {Bulawayo,Zimbabwe},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {Revision and Classification of the Cephalophinae},
 editor = {Grubb, P. and Groves, C.P.},
 pages = {703--728},
 publisher = {Chipangali Wildlife Trust},
 title = {Duikers of Africa: Masters of the African Floor},
 year = {2001}
}
,@article{4144,
 author = {Munyati, C. and Kabanda, T.A.},
 journal = {Regional Environmental Change},
 number = {1},
 pages = {41–56},
 title = {Using multitemporal Landsat TM imagery to establish land use pressure induced trends in forest and woodland cover in sections of the Soutpansberg Mountains of Venda region, Limpopo Province, South Africa},
 volume = {9},
 year = {2009}
}
,@article{4144,
 author = {Bourquin O, van Rensburg J},
 journal = {Lammergeyer},
 pages = {59--61},
 title = {Vertebrates of the Vernon Crookes Nature Reserve: additional and confirming records},
 volume = {34},
 year = {1984}
}
,@article{4144,
 author = {de Boer WF, Baquete DS},
 journal = {Environmental Conservation},
 pages = {208--218},
 title = {Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique},
 volume = {25},
 year = {1998}
}
,@article{4144,
 author = {de Vos V},
 journal = {Koedoe},
 pages = {217},
 title = {Extraordinary jumping ability of the Red Forest Duiker <i>Cephalophus natalensis</i>},
 volume = {22},
 year = {1979}
}
,@phdthesis{4144,
 author = {du Plessis SF},
 school = {University of Pretoria},
 title = {The past and present geographical distribution of the Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla in southern Africa},
 year = {1969}
}
,@article{4144,
 author = {Faurie AS, Perrin MR},
 journal = {Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde},
 pages = {73--84},
 title = {Rumen morphology and volatile fatty acid production in the blue duiker (<i>Cephalophus monticola</i>) and the red duiker (<i>Cephalophus natalensis</i>)},
 volume = {60},
 year = {1995}
}
,@book{4144,
 address = {London, UK},
 author = {Fitzsimons FW},
 publisher = {Longmans, Green and Co.},
 title = {The Natural History of South Africa},
 year = {1920}
}
,@article{4144,
 author = {Heinichen IG},
 journal = {Zoologica Africana},
 pages = {157--165},
 title = {Preliminary notes on the Suni, <i>Nesotragus moschatus</i> and Red Duiker, <i>Cephalophus natalensis</i>},
 volume = {7},
 year = {1972}
}
,@electronic{4144,
 address = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T4144A50183272.en.},
 author = {IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group},
 publisher = {The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T4144A50183272},
 title = {<i>Cephalophus natalensis</i>},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{4144,
 author = {Mathias I, Bourquin O},
 journal = {Lammergeyer},
 pages = {30--34},
 title = {Capture of blue duiker in Natal},
 volume = {33},
 year = {1984}
}
,@techreport{4144,
 address = {Pretoria},
 author = {Power RJ},
 institution = {Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria},
 title = {Prey selection of leopards <i>Panthera pardus</i> in the Soutpansberg, Limpopo Province, and the utilisation options for this population},
 year = {2002}
}
,@article{4144,
 author = {Ramesh T, Kalle R, Rosenlund H, Downs CT},
 journal = {Forest Ecology and Management},
 pages = {20--29},
 title = {Native habitat and protected area size matters: Preserving mammalian assemblages in the Maputaland Conservation Unit of South Africa},
 volume = {360},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{4144,
 author = {Spence JM},
 journal = {Pan-African Association of Zoological Gardens Bulletin},
 pages = {5--7},
 title = {Breeding duikers at Tygerberg Zoopark},
 volume = {1},
 year = {1991}
}
,]
Send feedback about this assessment to SANBI

Lead agencies, Partners and Funders

See the partners page