Red List of South African Species

Alternatively, Explore species
| National Red List categories | Partners |
Critically Endangered (CR)
Assessors: Richard Emslie Keryn Adcock
Contributors: Mike Knight Dave Balfour Michael Hoffmann Resit Akçakaya Matthew Child Craig Hilton-Taylor Carlo Rondinini Sam Ferreira Ben Okita Robert Brett
Reviewers: Richard Emslie Keryn Adcock

Rationale

Continentally, Black Rhino numbers declined by an estimated 97% since 1960. This was mainly due to poaching with continental numbers bottoming out at 2,410 in 1995. Since then, numbers have steadily increased with total Black Rhino numbers in Africa doubling to 4,880 by the end of 2010 and reaching 5,250 by the end of 2015 (with 90% bootstrapped confidence levels from 5,040–5,458). There were an estimated 65,000 Black Rhino in Africa in 1970 and so, at the continental level, current Black Rhino numbers are still 90% lower than three generations ago, making the species Critically Endangered at a global level. While Black Rhino populations in some range states have at times declined over the last three generations, numbers within the South Africa and Swaziland have been increasing for many years. In 1930, there were only an estimated 110 D. b. minor in South Africa in just two populations in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). With protection, active biological management and translocations to expand range and numbers, by the end of 2015 there were 54 breeding populations of D. b. minor in the region conserving an estimated 1,580 animals. This subspecies was reintroduced into Swaziland in 1987. In 1985 the more arid-adapted D. b. bicornis was reintroduced into South Africa from Namibia, and by the end of 2015, there were nine breeding subpopulations of this subspecies conserving an estimated 254 animals. A single out of range D. b. michaeli population was also established in South Africa in 1962. This population was later relocated to a private reserve in the country, and, by May 2016, numbers had grown to 93. From only 110 rhino in 1930, by the end of 2015 there were an estimated 1,913 Black Rhino overall in the South Africa and Swaziland region. Thus, both D. b. michaeli and D. b. bicornis numbers show an increase with long-term average population growth rates of around 7% and, for periods, well in excess of 9%. Neither of these subspecies had suffered any poaching up to end 2014. In contrast, the more numerous D. b. minor metapopulation, while still growing substantially, has performed less well. The long-term average underlying growth of this subspecies in South Africa has been 4.2% (weighted geometric mean for assessments over a number of periods). This subspecies has borne the brunt of the poaching, with Kruger National Park’s (KNP) D. b. minor population being especially impacted. Additionally, some long established subpopulations have not performed as well as others due in part to negative habitat changes and increased competition from other browsers. However, with increased biological management (translocations to reduce densities) it appears that underlying performance is improving. Based on empirically based model projections (explained in Population section below), the following listings are supported: Diceros bicornis: At the species level, the predicted status at a regional level under criteria D would become Near Threatened due to their having been more than 1,000 mature individuals for over 5 years. Projected declines over 5 years when modelling based on unadjusted reported poaching levels were not statistically significant and would not qualify under C1. However, the best prediction (assuming an 80% poaching detection rate in KNP – due to its size and lower field ranger densities), estimated that numbers would decline over the next 5 years and that this decline would be statistically significant (p < 0.0001). With the decline in numbers in KNP, no subpopulation in the region currently has more than 448 individuals (equivalent to 250 mature individuals). The species therefore now qualifies to be Endangered C2a(i). D. b. bicornis: There has been an increase in regional population size from both breeding and introductions of additional founder rhino from Namibia. Even under a scenario with future poaching, numbers of this subspecies are predicted to increase over the next 5 years. As there are fewer than 250 mature individuals in the region, this subspecies now qualifies as Endangered D. D. b. minor: Numbers of individuals have now exceeded 1,792 for more than 5 years and so no longer qualifies as Vulnerable under D1. However, no subpopulations have more than 250 mature individuals, and numbers are projected to decline (p < 0.0001) over the next 5 years (due primarily to a predicted KNP decline), so the subspecies now qualifies as Endangered C2a(i). D. b. michaeli: Numbers of this out of range subspecies have been increasing and are projected to continue to increase over the next 5 years, even under a modelled scenario with future poaching. While the single population of this subspecies in the region has very recently exceeded 90 animals (~ 50 mature individuals) this has not been the case for at least 5 years. While numbers are projected to increase over the next 5 years, future translocations out of the region are likely to reduce numbers of mature individuals back to below 50 mature individuals. The subspecies therefore regionally continues to qualify as Critically Endangered D. Black Rhino population estimates are revised by the AfRSG every 2–3 years and in South Africa there is regular confidential annual status reporting to the Southern African Development Community Rhino Management Group (SADC RMG). These assessments will thus be revised regularly to monitor the poaching threat. Regional population effects: All three Black Rhino subspecies occur in other range states outside of South Africa and Swaziland, and translocation techniques are well developed. If the South African and Swaziland indigenous subspecies were to face extinction due to poaching, rhino could potentially be brought back to this region. This would be conditional on the generosity of other range states and the continued survival of these subspecies in these countries. However, given the likelihood that such heightened poaching pressure would also be felt in other range states, they may well then not be in a position to provide founder animals to rescue the subspecies in this region. Therefore, it has been assumed for the purpose of these assessments that rescue from outside the region is unlikely to occur.

Distribution

There are now three remaining recognised ecotypes/subspecies of Black Rhino occupying East and southern African countries. The fourth recognised subspecies D. b. longipes once ranged through the savannah zones of central West Africa but has gone extinct in its last known habitats in northern Cameroon. Within the assessment region, Black Rhino have never occurred in Lesotho. There is also an area south of Lesotho and the southern boundary of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) into Eastern Cape where it is believed rhinos never occurred, and this is not considered Black Rhino range. There were no Southwestern Black Rhino (D. b. bicornis) in South Africa in 1973 with the subspecies first being reintroduced in 1985. The subspecies is not native to Swaziland. The AfRSG data shows that its area of occupancy in South Africa is estimated at 3,819 km2 in western and southeastern South Africa. Southern-central Black Rhino (D. b. minor) are believed to have occurred from southern Tanzania through Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique to the northern, north-western and north-eastern parts of South Africa (north of the Mtamvuna River). It also probably occurred in southern Democratic Republic of the Congo, eastern Botswana, Malawi, and Swaziland. Today, its stronghold is South Africa and, to a lesser extent Zimbabwe, with smaller numbers remaining in southern Tanzania. The Southern-central Black Rhino is now thought to be extinct in Angola. It also is believed to have gone extinct in Mozambique, although in 2015 it was reported that two animals had migrated into the country from South Africa. The subspecies has also been reintroduced to Botswana, Malawi, Swaziland and Zambia. Although previously widely distributed within the assessment region, the subspecies now only exists in a few isolated pockets within its former range. The majority of these are on formal conservation areas although some are on private lands. Specifically, it occurs within the eastern Lowveld in Limpopo and Mpumalanga and KZN Lowveld habitats. In the Limpopo Province, its range extends westwards to the North West Province. Its putative distribution is partially predicted by rainfall isohyets but also the potential barrier to movement south of KZN posed by the “Transkei gap”. There are 54 breeding locations within the region and the estimated area of occupancy is 25,029 km2. The Eastern Black Rhino (D. b. michaeli) was introduced to South Africa in 1962 and now exists on private land. The long-term goal is to repatriate animals from this population back to its former range in East Africa. For the time being, we include the subspecies in the national assessment as the one out-of-range population is of continental significance for the subspecies, and is well-protected and breeding successfully. AfRSG data show that its area of occupancy in South Africa was estimated at 350 km2. This population in the region has to date been increasing rapidly and there have not been extreme fluctuations in numbers. The Eastern Black Rhino regionally therefore does not qualify under any of the threatened categories using Criterion B. For security reasons detailed maps of the distribution of Black Rhino in the region are not provided by AfRSG or SADC RMG and the current subspecies ranges defined for South Africa in the national Black Rhino Biodiversity Management Plan (Knight et al. 2011) are shown in Figure 1 taken from the plan that was formally approved and gazetted in 2013. Historically, a small number of subpopulations of D. b. minor were established in what was before 2007 considered D. b. minor range in the Eastern Cape, but which has now been reclassified as D. b. bicornis range. The largest of these subpopulations has become an AfRSG-rated Key1 population of continental significance and is now a significant donor population. On pragmatic conservation grounds, it has been decided not to try to move the animals from this subpopulation as this would be very expensive, take many years, and would result in some mortalities and short-term negative effects on breeding. As there is no chance of subspecies mixing from this and the other smaller privately owned D. b. minor subpopulations in the Eastern Cape, these can remain, but the smaller subpopulations have been encouraged to replace their D. b. minor with D. b. bicornis should the opportunity arise in future (Knight et al. 2011). Swaziland falls within D. b. minor range.

Population trend

Trend

Historically the Black Rhino was once the most numerous of the world’s rhinoceros species and could have numbered around 850,000 individuals. Relentless hunting of the species and clearances of land for settlement and agriculture reduced numbers, and by 1960 only an estimated 100,000 remained. Between 1960 and 1995, large-scale poaching caused a dramatic 98% collapse in numbers. Over this period, numbers only increased in South Africa and Namibia, from an estimated 630 and 300 in 1980 (Emslie & Brooks 1999) to 1,893 and 1,946 respectively by the end of 2015 (AfRSG data 2016). Continentally numbers bottomed out at only 2,410 in 1995 (Emslie & Brooks 1999). From 1992–1995 total numbers remained relatively stable with increases in some countries (those with the best-protected and managed populations) being cancelled out by declines in others. However, since the low of 1995, Black Rhino numbers at a continental level have increased every time continental population estimates have been revised by the AfRSG, doubling to 4,880 by December 2010 and reaching 5,250 by the end of 2015 (Emslie 2006; AfRSG data 2008, 2011, 2013, 2016; Emslie et al. 2016). Increases in numbers have occurred in countries where investments in conservation programmes (including monitoring, biological management and law enforcement) have been high. As with White Rhinoceros (White Rhino; Ceratotherium simum simum), four range states (South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Kenya) currently conserve the majority (96%) of remaining wild Black Rhino. However, the emerging threat of poaching through trafficking syndicates may ultimately undermine such successes. Within the assessment region, numbers remain low but stable or increasing over three generations. Generation length is empirically derived to be 14.5 years (SADC RMG unpubl. data). This gives a three generation window of 43.5 years. The number of mature individuals has been estimated at 55.8% of total numbers based on the average of Black Rhinos that are adults (based on SADC RMG confidential status reporting and data). There were an estimated 254 Southwestern Black Rhino (D. b. bicornis) in South Africa at the end of 2012. There were no Southwestern Black Rhino in South Africa in 1973 with the subspecies first being reintroduced in 1985. By the end of 2015 the Southern-central Black Rhino (D. b. minor) was estimated at 2,164 individuals throughout Africa with 1,560 in South Africa, and 20 in Swaziland. Details of the population data and models for the species overall and for each subspecies are described below. On average in the region, proportionately fewer of the Black Rhinos have been poached each year than the White Rhinos, particularly in South African subpopulations outside of Kruger National Park (KNP) and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN)[1]. However, the average underlying performance of D. b. minor has also been lower than that achieved by the region’s White Rhinos, and the other two Black Rhino subspecies in South Africa. Following the recent period of rapid increase in poaching of both rhino species in the region (which started in 2008), over the last year poaching in the region has slowed and started to decline (Figure 2). However, if poaching were to continue to escalate once again, this could threaten the progress achieved in the South Africa and Swaziland region (and rest of Africa) over the last two decades. There is uncertainty in predicting the future for Black Rhino, and Red List Guidelines (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2014) recognise that “the way this is handled can have a major influence on the results of an evaluation”. For example, outcomes can vary depending upon underlying rhino population growth rates (before poaching) which may improve or decline (compared to a metapopulation’s longer term average), and depending on whether future poaching follows recent, intermediate or longer term poaching trends. Measurement error around population sizes and poaching estimates also needs to be factored into the assessment process. According to Red Listing Guidelines “uncertainty may be represented by specifying a best estimate and a range of plausible values for a particular quantity”. We have adopted this approach here. The Red Listing Guidelines also state that “the method used (to represent uncertainty) should be stated and justified in the assessment documentation”, and that “projected trends require a discussion of the methods and assumptions behind models used”. In the interests of transparency, the approaches taken when modelling have been outlined in some detail. We have tried to follow the Red List Guidelines’ advice and adopted “a moderate attitude, taking care to identify the most likely plausible range of values, excluding extreme or unlikely values”. With a high-profile species like Black Rhino, the assessors felt it was especially important to be transparent and provide full details of the methods, approaches and assumptions used. Phillip Tetlock, has for over two decades examined the success of predictions, and the factors associated with superforecasters that are consistently much better than others (who often do little better than “dart-throwing chimpanzees” would). He concluded that better forecasters tended to be more granular in their thinking and invariably considered a range of alternative possibilities (Tetlock & Gardner 2015). Where possible we have tried to follow this more detailed approach in an effort to try to ensure that the predictions and hence the Red List Assessments are as good as they can be. Black Rhino Diceros bicornis: Endangered C2a(i) At the end of 2015, there were an estimated 1,913 Black Rhino in South Africa and Swaziland (estimated 90% bootstrapped confidence levels of 1,817–1,970). Black Rhino numbers in the region have exceeded 1,792 individuals (~ 1,000 adults) over the last 8 years (Figure 5). The predicted number 5 years into the future (end 2020) based on averaging arithmetic and exponential poaching scenarios using the long term average underlying population growth rate was 1,801. Thus the Black Rhino in the region no longer qualifies to be rated as Vulnerable under Criterion D. Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models based on last 5 year poaching trends estimated end 2020 numbers at 1,789 and 1,591 rhino, respectively (thicker solid lines) (Figure 6). The overall average estimated number at end of 2020 based on the 5 years poaching trend and the average long-term underlying growth rate was 1,690 rhino (black dotted line). After 5 years projected numbers are predicted to have not declined sufficiently to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1, even under the most extreme low growth and high exponential poaching scenario. The average of all six scenarios projecting forward 5 years would give a Red List categorisation under A4 and C1 of NT for all years. Up to and including 8 years into the future all six scenarios modelled would qualify as NT. After 9 years the range is from NT to EN (under C1) and after 10 years outcomes cover the full spectrum from NT to CE (under C1). However, if one were to model a less severe but probably more reasonable longer term minimum underlying growth rate (based on minimum geomean of 15 moving 10-year moving windows in Table 4) the first 8 years would again qualify as NT, but with a range in outcomes from NT to EN for years 9 and 10. Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models based on last 5 years poaching trends estimated end 2020 numbers at 1,761 and 1,640 rhino respectively (thicker red and blue solid lines). The overall average estimated number at end of 2020, based on the 5 years poaching trend and the average long-term underlying growth rate was 1,701 rhino (black dotted line). Figure 7 shows that projected numbers would not decline sufficiently over the next 5 years to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1, even under the most extreme low growth/high exponential poaching scenario. The average of all six scenarios would once again give a Red List rating of NT for all years. Up to and including 9 years into the future all six scenarios modelled would qualify as NT. After 10 years the range is from NT to EN (under C1) and the assessment range would be the same if modelling the less severe but probably more reasonable longer term minimum underlying growth rate (based on minimum geomean of 15 moving 10-year moving windows in Table 5). Figure 8 shows that if the most recent (May 2014 to April 2016) poaching trends continue, then the prognosis is much better than Figures 6 and 7; with rhino numbers now projected to increase on average (black dotted line). Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models with 1-year poaching trends projected numbers in 2020 at 2,001 and 2,025 rhino. With the overall average projection after 5 years of 2,013 rhino, projected numbers would not decline sufficiently after 5 years and up to 10 years in the future to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1, even under the most extreme low growth + high exponential poaching scenario. In conclusion, for the Black Rhino in the region, the average estimated number after 5 years across all poaching scenarios modelled using best average estimate of underlying growth (1,801) predicts a 5.9% decline in numbers from current levels over the next 5 years. This scale of projected decline is not sufficient to take the species near to threshold levels to qualify under any of the threatened categories under A4 or C1. However, all populations of Black Rhino in the region currently have fewer than 448 individuals (? 250 mature individuals) and would therefore qualify to be rated as Endangered under C2a(i) given the projected decline in numbers. While a modelled decline based on official poaching statistics over 5 years just failed to be significant at the 90% level (p=0.1145), the modelled decline was highly significant under the precautionary assumption of 80% poaching detection for KNP used in the assessment. Thus, one only would need to miss a few poached rhino carcasses for the species to be rated Endangered under C2a(i); and therefore this seems to be the most appropriate assessment at the species level.Southern-central Black Rhino – D. b. minor: Endangered C2a(i) Globally, the Southern-Central Black Rhino is listed as Critically Endangered as the subspecies is estimated to have undergone a decline exceeding 80% over the past three generations with the major declines being in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Botswana and Tanzania. Continentally numbers of this subspecies have declined by an estimated 58% since 1980 (5,100 to 2,164). The subspecies (and species) was also only reintroduced to Swaziland in 1987 and within South Africa numbers of this subspecies in the region have increased over the last three generations (Figure 9) up from only 110 in 1930. The geometric mean underlying growth rate of this subspecies in the region over the 24 years up to 2014 was 4.2% ranging, over periods, from 2.0% to 6.1%. Minimum and maximum growth rates estimated from all 15 10-year moving window periods across 24 years of SADC RMG analyses showed a smaller range from 3.6% to 5.2%. Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models with the last 5 year poaching trends predicted end 2020 numbers at 1,330 and 1,154 rhino, with an overall best average prediction of 1,242 rhino. After 5 years projected numbers would have not declined sufficiently to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1 (Figure 10). Up to 7 years from 2015, all six scenarios modelled continue to qualify as NT. After 8 years the range is from NT to EN (under C1). After 9 and 10 years outcomes cover the full spectrum from NT to CE (under C1). If modelling using the more appropriate longer-term minimum and maximum underlying growth rates (based on minimum and maximum geomeans of 15 moving 10-year moving windows (Table 4), the results are not as extreme with the average of all six scenarios, remaining at NT for years 0–8 and becoming EN rather than CE (under C1) in years 9 and 10. Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models with the last 3 year poaching trends predicted end 2020 numbers at 1,302 and 1,207 rhino, with an overall average prediction of 1,255 rhino. After 5 years, projected numbers would have not declined sufficiently to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1 (Figure 11). Up to 7 years, all six scenarios modelled would qualify as NT. After 8 years the range is from NT to EN (under C1). After nine and 10 years, outcomes cover the full spectrum from NT to CE (under C1). If modelling using minimum and maximum geomeans of 15 moving 10-year moving windows (Table 5) the results are not as extreme when all scenarios modelled up to 8 years would qualify as NT with ranges of NT to EN after 9 years and NT to CE after 10 years. The average of all six scenarios would be NT for years 0–8 and E (under C1) for years 9 and 10. Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models based on most recent year’s poaching trends predict 2020 numbers at 1,540 and 1,565 rhino giving an overall average prediction of 1,553 rhino. After 5 years projected numbers would not have declined sufficiently to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1 (Figure 12). In contrast to modelling a continuation of 3 to 5 year poaching trends, all six scenarios modelled using poaching trends over the last year would qualify as Red List ratings of NT even 10 years into the future. At the end of 2015, there were an estimated 1,580 individuals of this subspecies in the South Africa and Swaziland region. This is fewer than the 1,792 individuals required to ensure 1,000 adults. Also, the population size has not exceeded this level for more than 5 years. Therefore the Southern-central Black Rhino could qualify to be listed as Vulnerable D1 in the region. As it occurs in many more than five populations it does not qualify to be listed Vulnerable under D2. The wide range of possible outcomes (and huge uncertainty) 10 years into the future (range 173–1,929) was 2.6 times greater than the range predicting 5 years into the future (1,037–1,704), and the 10-year possible outcome range exceeded the starting number of rhinos at the end of 2015. This supports the decision to predict only 5 years into the future for this Red List Assessment. All populations of D. b. minor in the region currently have fewer than 448 individuals (? 250 mature individuals) and the best estimate of numbers after 5 years projects a decline that would be statistically significant. This subspecies therefore qualifies to be rated as Endangered under C2a(i) given the projected significant decline in numbers over the next 5 years. These statistically significant declines in numbers of this subspecies are projected to occur after 5 years irrespective of whether 80% or 100% of poaching is detected in KNP. Southwestern Black Rhino – D. b. bicornis: Endangered D Three generations ago there were no Southwestern Black Rhino in South Africa, with the subspecies having been reintroduced in 1985 with founders from Namibia. Additional founders from Namibia have since been imported from time to time subject to limited availability. This subspecies has bred very well in South Africa (Figure 13), and up to end 2014, had not suffered any poaching. The first D. b. bicornis calf born and conceived in the region was in 1987. This unfortunately died (aged six) from man-induced translocation related issues. The first calf conceived and born in the region which went on to successfully have offspring of its own was born in 1989, with more successful calves following in 1991. As it was not possible to project back three generations for this subspecies, it was instead decided to project back to 1989 (the first year the reintroduced metapopulation demonstrated it could be self-sustaining when the metapopulation size was just 13 animals). Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models using the last 5 years’ poaching trends for the region predicted 2020 numbers at 318 and 307 rhino with an overall best average prediction of 313 rhino. After 5 years, projected numbers would not decline sufficiently under any scenario modelled to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1. Up to 10 years, all six scenarios modelled continue to qualify as NT under Criteria A4 and C1 (Figure 14). Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth (6.9%), the arithmetic and exponential models based on last 3 year poaching trends predicted end 2020 numbers at 323 and 318 rhino, with overall best average prediction of 321 rhino. After 5 years projected numbers would not decline sufficiently to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1. Up to 10 years, all six scenarios modelled continue to qualify as NT under Criteria A4 and C1 (Figure 15). Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models using the last 1 year poaching trend predicted end 2020 numbers at 346 and 340 rhino with an overall best average of 343 rhino. After 5 years, projected numbers have not declined sufficiently to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1. Up to 10 years, all six scenarios modelled continue to qualify as NT under criteria A4 and C1 (Figure 16). Averaging all six modelling scenarios using the best estimate of underlying growth, projected numbers at the end of 2020 were 325 rhino. This represents a 28% increase on estimated end 2015 numbers. AfRSG data show that the area of occupancy of the Southwestern Black Rhino in South Africa was estimated at 3,819 km2 and this exceeds the threshold level of 2,000 km2. Thus, the Southwestern Black Rhino regionally does not qualify under any of the threatened categories using Criterion B. In conclusion, this subspecies doesn’t qualify for any of the threatened categories under Criterion A4 or C1 or C2, because under all modelled scenarios, future numbers are projected to be significantly higher than 3 generations back from that date. At the end of 2015, there were an estimated 254 D. b. bicornis individuals in South Africa. This is fewer than 448 (<250 mature individuals) meaning the subspecies qualifies to be rated as Endangered under Criterion D. Eastern Black Rhino – D. b. michaeli: Critically Endangered D Although D. b. michaeli is extra-limital to the assessment region, it warrants an assessment as a benign introduction and important source population for reintroduction back into East Africa and potentially to other range states who want to reintroduce Black Rhino but whose indigenous subspecies has gone extinct (for example, Chad). This subspecies is listed globally as Critically Endangered, as numbers have declined by over 90% over the last three generations, with only 886 individuals remaining in 2015. It is the rarest of the three remaining subspecies. Initial founders were introduced from Kenya to a South African national park in 1962 but starting in 1998 all animals were translocated over a number of years to a single population on private land. There is thus just this one privately owned subpopulation of Eastern Black Rhino in South Africa, currently numbering 93 individuals (April 2016). This subspecies has not suffered from poaching in South Africa and, as Figure 17 shows, numbers have grown steadily. The geometric mean estimated actual growth rate has been just over 7% over 1991–2014. For a number of periods growth exceeded 9% / annum. Rapid growth was achieved despite a temporary flattening off of growth for a few years during the complex transfer of this entire population from the national park to private land. Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models with last 5 year poaching trends predicted end 2020 numbers at 119 and 111 rhino giving an overall best average of 115 rhino. After 5 years, projected numbers would not decline sufficiently to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1. Up to 10 years, all six scenarios modelled continue to qualify as NT under A4 and C1 (Figure 18). Using the best long-term estimate of underlying metapopulation growth, the arithmetic and exponential models using the last 3-year regional poaching trends predict end 2020 numbers at 121 and 115 rhino, with an overall best average of 118 rhino. Figure 19 and Figure 20 shows that after 5 years projected numbers would not decline sufficiently to cross any of the thresholds under Criteria A4 and C1. Up to 10 years, all six scenarios modelled continue to qualify as NT under A4 and C1. In conclusion, the average of all modelling scenarios for three generations using best estimate of underlying growth, gives projected numbers at the end of 2020 of 120 rhino. This represents a 29% increase on estimated end April 2016 numbers. AfRSG data show that the area of occupancy of D. b. michaeli in South Africa and Swaziland was estimated at 350 km2. This is below the Endangered threshold level of 500 km2 under Criterion B2. However, to qualify as Endangered under B2 also requires at least two of three conditions B2(a), (b) and (c) to be satisfied. In this case only one criterion B2(a) is satisfied (there is only a single population). This population has, to date, been increasing rapidly and there have not been extreme fluctuations in numbers so neither (b) nor (c) are satisfied. The Eastern Black Rhino regionally therefore does not qualify under any of the threatened categories using Criterion B. This subspecies does not qualify to be rated in any of the threatened categories under Criteria C1 as under all modelled scenarios up to 5 years into the future numbers are higher than one, two or three generations back. Under all scenarios modelled this subspecies does not qualify under Criterion C2 either as numbers have not, and are not projected to, decline. If they were to decline it would be due to translocation of founder rhinos outside the region, and not due to any process that would threaten future population growth. It does, however, qualify to be listed as Critically Endangered under Criteria D. Numbers have continued to increase and very recently numbers have increased over 90 (with estimated 50 mature individuals). However, numbers have not exceeded 50 mature individuals for at least 5 years. While numbers are projected to grow over the next 5 years in the absence of removals, there is a high chance that a number of rhino may well be translocated to East Africa or Chad to create new populations there. Such translocations would be in line with the national South African Black Rhino Biodiversity Management Plan (Knight et al. 2011), which states that this single existing D. b. michaeli population in South Africa should ideally be repatriated to its former range and should not be allowed to expand range nationally beyond their current ownership in South Africa. Such translocations most probably will cause numbers in the region to drop back below 90. Thus D. b. michaeli will probably continue to qualify as Critically Endangered under criterion D.

Threats

The current main threat facing the Black Rhino is the demand for rhino horn in parts of Southeast Asia and the increasing scale and involvement of transnational organised crime in poaching for horns to supply this demand. In recent years there has been an upsurge in black market prices for horn which has caused an increase in poaching in some range states (Thomas 2010). Before the onset of mass poaching in 2008, Black Rhinos were performing well in Kruger National Park (KNP) (Ferreira et al. 2011), but are now most likely declining although this is difficult to demonstrate due to sampling error (Ferreira et al. 2015). Statistical bootstrap modelling by the AfRSG however suggests that in all likelihood numbers of Black Rhinos have decreased in KNP from 2012–15 (p = 0.0721). For many other protected areas, declining management capacity and budgets in some formal conservation agencies are reducing the ability of conservationists to effectively counteract poaching (for example Adcock 2016). In areas where both Black and White Rhinos co-occur, White Rhinos may act as a buffer against Black Rhino poaching as the former historically are more likely to be poached on account of their preference for more open habitats (easier to find), their greater average horn weights, and their more frequent occurrence in larger groups. For example, over the period 2010–2014, available data show that only 4.4% of rhinos poached were Black, and while this proportion recently increased slightly it is unclear if this is a trend or not. No Black Rhino have been poached in Swaziland since reintroduction. However, if a greater proportion of poached Black Rhino carcasses are not being detected in the denser habitats they favour (especially in the region’s largest population) the data may be underestimating poaching for these subspecies. Alternatively, small subpopulation sampling effects might be a partial cause of these differences. While recorded rhino poaching in South Africa declined from 2014–2015, the number of Black Rhino poached increased in 2015 due to an increase in KNP. Continentally, the number of Black Rhino poached has also recently increased with increasing numbers being poached in Namibia and Zimbabwe (Emslie et al. 2016). Official poaching data for the first 4 months of 2016 indicate the trend of declining overall rhino poaching in South Africa is continuing. Corruption can reduce effectiveness of anti-poaching measures and interfere with efforts to convict conservation officials and/or implicated permit officials. Corruption is routinely a problem associated with involvement of transnational organised crime that are involved with rhino horn poaching and subsequent trafficking of illegally sourced horn (and other illegal products). Poaching is simply the first stage of horn trafficking. Corruption in the networks involved in rhino conservation (for example, game farmers, veterinarians and park rangers, as well as law enforcement officials) enhances the resilience of criminal syndicates by supplying criminals with false documentation, laundering facilities for wildlife or products, and transport and holding facilities (Ayling 2013). Corruption is similarly entrenched in the illegal ivory trade (Bennett 2015). However, research into how corruption affects conservation, and thus what interventions should be implemented, is lacking (for example, Smith & Walpole 2005). Further collation of evidence for corruption should be amassed. Non-range state governments and NGOs are encouraged to consult with range States before making rhino related decisions in order to help ensure rhino conservation in range states will not be negatively affected by those decisions. Increasing militarisation of anti-poaching efforts in the face of an increasing and more aggressive poaching threat also poses a threat to relations with local communities. Finding ways to increasingly involve and include communities in the rhino conservation effort and associated benefits is being increasingly recognised as very important. If future legal changes were ever made that might limit private property sizes, this may pose a threat to Black Rhino conservation (especially in arid areas) as large areas are required if one is to reintroduce at least the recommended 20+ founders and have a potential carrying capacity of at least 50 animals. Similarly, biological management for growth has been suboptimal in some subpopulations, due to reluctance of management to translocate adequate founder groups, that may limit subpopulation performance in both the target and host sites ( Linklater & Hutcheson 2010).

Uses and trade

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), in late 2004, approved limited quotas to hunt up to five specific individual surplus Black Rhino males each year for both South Africa and Namibia, to further demographic and/or genetic metapopulation goals. Over the 11 years, 2005–2015, South Africa has hunted a total of 40 males out of a possible quota of 55 (an average of only 3.6 rhino per year which represents only 0.2% of South Africa’s current total population). The very little trophy hunting that has taken place has positively impacted on the population, expanding Black Rhino range through translocation and enhancing genetic and demographic conservation whilst also generating valuable income to help fund conservation efforts. Live Black Rhinos are also currently only openly bought and sold in South Africa. To date, South Africa has donated founder Black Rhino to Botswana, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, with possible translocations to Rwanda and Chad possible in future. A number of Black Rhinos have also been relocated to zoos across the world (largely D. b. minor from South Africa). Some additional founder D. b. michaeli and one D. b. bicornis have been reintroduced to the wild from zoos. While there is private ownership of Black Rhino in South Africa, in other range states, Black Rhinos on communal or private land are managed on a custodianship basis for the state. Since 2004, several new Black Rhino sites have been established on private and communal land in South Africa with a founder group of rhino from provincial reserves that are being managed on a custodianship basis, but with sharing of progeny between the provincial donor and the site owners. This sharing program is facilitated by the successful World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) funded Black Rhino Range Expansion Project (BRREP), and has significantly increased Black Rhino range and numbers. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, and more recently Eastern Cape, have provided founder rhino for this programme. The private sector have generally had a positive effect on this species, as it has been widely reintroduced onto private properties within its natural distribution range. Swaziland’s current small Black Rhino subpopulation is managed for the country by Big Game Parks. Black Rhino are primarily threatened by illegal killing for their horns. A small number of private owners have recently removed all or some of their rhino, because the upsurge in poaching has greatly increased the costs and physical risks for rhino owners (although this problem has been more common with White Rhino). Limited legal commercial use options (Table 7) are restricted to limited live sales and legal hunting of up to a maximum of 5 animals / year in South Africa (and Namibia) under a CITES quota that also must meet stipulated criteria to ensure this will enhance either population demography and/or genetic conservation. Black Rhino also have an ecotourism value, but given their nature and habitat they are not as easily seen (or as suitable for tourism) as White Rhino.

Conservation

Black Rhino have been listed on CITES Appendix I since 1977. All international commercial trade in Black Rhinos and their products have been prohibited. To help reduce illegal trade, and complement CITES international trade bans, domestic anti-trade measures and legislation were implemented in the 1990s by a number of consumer states. Since CITES CoP13, limited sport hunting quotas have been approved of up to five surplus males annually (to further genetic and demographic conservation management goals) for the two range states with biggest populations (South Africa and Namibia). Some have proposed that legal international trade in rhino horn could form part of the solution (for example, Biggs et al. 2013; Ferreira et al. 2014), such as through raising capital for reinvestment into rhino conservation. However, others point out that the market is not well understood and/or we should focus on reducing demand through social marketing, education campaigns, lobbying and inter-governmental cooperation (for example, Collins et al. 2013; Nadal & Aguayo 2014; Challender & MacMillan 2014; Olmedo 2015; Crookes & Blignaut 2015). Similarly, there is concern that the capacity to regulate a legal trade is inadequate to prevent the laundering of illegal horn and subsequent increased poaching of wild animals (for example, Taylor et al. 2014; Bennett 2015).

Effective field protection of rhino populations has been critical. Many remaining rhino are now concentrated in fenced sanctuaries, conservancies, rhino conservation areas and intensive protection zones where law enforcement effort can be concentrated at effective levels. However, enforcement alone is not a long-term solution as the scale of the economic drivers behind poaching is likely to overwhelm regulatory mechanisms (Challender & MacMillan 2014). Similarly, anti-poaching campaigns and operations alone may not reverse the poaching trend in Kruger National Park (KNP) (Ferreira et al. 2015), as intensive anti-poaching programmes have at best to date slowed the escalation of poaching rates (Humphreys & Smith 2014). Dehorning of rhino is unlikely to be a viable solution on its own and has to complement anti-poaching patrols (Lindsey & Taylor 2011, Lee & Roberts 2016). Unless fines are very high they may be viewed as a minor tax on turnover of criminal syndicates (and possibly an incentive to poach). Handing down of custodial sentences is more likely to act as a deterrent.

Monitoring has also provided information to guide biological management decision-making aimed at managing the region’s Black Rhino populations for rapid population growth. The SADC RMG has since 1989 collated and analysed annual status reports on each population in South Africa, Namibia and more recently Zimbabwe. The resultant information available (confidentially) to guide management is probably better than for almost any other large mammal species. This has helped inform decision-making. Surplus animals have also been translocated to set up new subpopulations both within and outside the species' former range. Following a decline in breeding performance in some areas, increased effort has recently been given to improving biological management with a view to increasing metapopulation growth rates. Reintroductions have proven to be successful (SADC RMG Black Rhino status report summaries, K. Adcock various; Law et al. 2015): positive rhino population growth rates (averaging over 4% regionally in the long term) have been demonstrated in most sites in successive Status Report Summaries from rhino populations data submitted to the SADC RMG. The number of breeding subpopulations has increased from under 20 in 1989 to over 65 in 2014.

Increasing efforts are also being made to integrate local communities into conservation efforts and associated benefits (most notably in the Kunene region of Namibia). BRREP sites include community and privately owned land. In contrast to Southern White Rhino, where individuals on private land are all owned, custodianship of a founder group is used as a way to rapidly increase Black Rhino range and numbers using private and communal land. The private and community landowners under the BRREP own every second male and female offspring once they are over 5 years old.

Management responses that facilitated range expansions have played a key role in recovering both Black (Knight et al. 2011) and White Rhinos (Knight 2013). Strategic rhino removal from focal areas that are heavily targeted by poachers to areas of lower risk could reduce mortality rates. For example, it may be advisable to move rhinos from poaching hotspots close to international boundaries that provide ample escape opportunities for the poachers towards areas and with easier access for management patrols and anti-poaching operations. Such removals also have the additional benefit of focusing management actions over smaller areas (Ferreira et al. 2015). Strategic rhino removals from landscapes with high densities where environmental and density-dependent population regulation may be operating (Emslie 2001; Greaver et al. 2014), can stimulate growth rates in those landscapes. This is in line with the constant harvest strategy advocated for high-density Black Rhino subpopulations (Emslie 2001; Knight et al. 2011). Such translocations could offset anticipated poaching effects through induced lower mortalities and higher birth rates because of lower local densities (Rachlow & Berger 1998). Additionally, new subpopulations can be established, as well as widening the ownership basis and hence shared interest in protection of the species (Ferreira et al. 2015). Such strategies may thus result in positive growth rates both in the source and in the recipient sites.

In addition to local and national initiatives, there are a number of regional African rhino conservation initiatives: the SADC RMG, and the SADC Rhino and Elephant Security Group (RESG)/Interpol Environmental Crime Working Group. The AfRSG is the continental coordinating body for rhino conservation in Africa. Range states recently (with AfRSG facilitation) produced a draft continental plan for African rhinos.

In the long term, however, integrated approaches, aside from the anti-poaching approach, to reduce the poaching threat are needed (Ferreira & Okita-Ouma 2012; Ferreira et al. 2014). These include:
  1. Greater use of technology, especially in very large areas where it is not possible to have one field ranger per 7 to 10 km2.
  2. Disrupting international criminal networks through the use of social network analysis (Haas & Ferreira 2015). Previously, poachers were unsophisticated and informal whereas the current poaching crisis represents highly organised criminal syndicates that are resilient to disturbance (Ayling 2013), which necessitates targeting key players by law enforcers.
  3. Congruent legal and extradition agreements between countries targeted by poachers and those harbouring poachers and horn dealers (Ferreira & Okita-Ouma 2012).
  4. Demand reduction campaigns for illegal rhino horn (Ferreira & Okita-Ouma 2012; Litchfield 2013; Emslie et al. 2016).
  5. Provision of alternative economies in communities where poaching originates (Child 2012). Here it is proposed that devolving the ownership of rhinos to private, community and state landowners and providing bottom-up markets for legal hunting and trade might provide powerful economic incentives for rhino conservation (Child 2012). This also includes ongoing biological management efforts to maximise rhino population growth, coupled with land restitution processes and co-management that support community involvement and benefit sharing from rhino conservation.
The above holistic approach is echoed by the recently released recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry established by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA 2016), which comprise:
  1. Security, including the adoption and implementation of the National Integrated Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking;
  2. Community empowerment, including the development, adoption and implementation of a Community Empowerment Plan;
  3. Biological management, including the adoption of an African rhino range States African Rhino Conservation Action Plan;
  4. Responsive legislative provisions that are effectively implemented and enforced, including incentives to rhino owners to support continued investment in the conservation of rhino; and
  5. Demand management, including information gathering to enhance our knowledge about demand for rhino horn and identifying the most effective interventions to manage demand.
Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:
  • Adhere to the draft Continental African Rhino Plan and South African Black Rhino Biodiversity and Management Plan (Knight et al. 2011) and be an active contributor to SADC RMG (confidential) Annual Status Reporting.
  • Submit DNA samples collected by trained collectors using RhoDIS kits to a RhoDIS-accredited lab for inclusion in the global rhino DNA database. The RhoDIS rhino DNA project allows the linking of blood and horn samples taken from suspects to known rhino carcasses for court cases, increasing chances of effective prosecution (Harper 2011).
  • Conservation agencies, Investigators and police representatives to attend and participate in SADC RESG/Interpol ECWG meetings.
  • Invest in monitoring and protection. SADC RMG Black Rhino status reporting has revealed that areas with poor monitoring suffer higher poaching.
  • Collaborate with other rhino conservationists in both state, community and private sector and use intelligence-driven law enforcement.
  • Authorities need estimates based on consistent and improved sampling techniques to define Black Rhino population trends. Although individual recognition through dedicated observation is not feasible in areas the size of KNP, registration studies in Black Rhino hotspots within KNP may complement aerial survey approaches by using tracking devices fitted to a sample of individuals to monitor subpopulation trends (Ferreira et al. 2015).
  • Reintroduction sites should be selected carefully as areas ≤ 11,500 ha and release densities ≤ 9 km2 / rhino pose an increasing risk to rhino survivorship and thus larger reserves and lower densities than these should be preferred release sites (Linklater & Swaisgood 2008).
Research priorities:
  • Effectiveness of strategies to curb poaching and testing of new law enforcement and surveillance methods and equipment.
  • Improved intelligence analysis including aimed at identifying and disrupting higher levels in criminal pyramids.
  • RhoDIS rhino DNA work for forensic use in court and to help guide biological management.
  • Consumer demand profiles.
  • Finding ways to substantively get communities more involved in and sharing benefits of rhino conservation.
  • Quantification of value and conservation benefits of sport hunting.
  • Assessing the effectiveness and impacts of demand reduction and general education campaigns in end user markets.
  • Pros and cons of alternative policy options including effects of legalising rhino horn trade.
  • Ongoing SADC RMG status report analyses.
  • Biological management and security assessments of suitability of potential new areas for reintroducing rhinos.
  • Holding a follow-up rhino biological management workshop.
Encouraged citizen actions:
  • Provision of financial support for field conservation action – but only to bona fide recognised agencies with a track record.
  • Landowners should continue to provide new land to allow for continued expansion of range and numbers (but will to some extent depend upon costs, risks and economic incentives).

References 

[@book{4185,
 address = {Gland, Switzerland},
 author = {Emslie, R. and Brooks, M. (compilers)},
 publisher = {IUCN},
 title = {African Rhino: Status Survey and Action Plan},
 year = {1999}
}
,@techreport{4185,
 author = {Emslie, R. H., Milledge, S., Brooks, M., Strien, N. J., van and Dublin, H.},
 title = {African and Asian Rhinoceroses – Status, Conservation and Trade},
 year = {2007}
}
,@electronic{4185,
 address = {http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/html/SSC-OP- 039/cover.html.},
 author = {Emslie, R.H., Amin, R. and Kock, R.},
 publisher = {IUCN, Gland, Switzerland},
 title = {Guidelines for the <i>in situ</i> re-introduction and translocation of African and Asian rhinoceros},
 year = {2009}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Emslie, R.H.},
 journal = {Pachyderm},
 pages = {100–105},
 title = {Rhino population sizes and trends},
 volume = {41},
 year = {2006}
}
,@electronic{6557,
 address = {http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.},
 author = {IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee},
 title = {Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 11. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Downloadable from },
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Ayling J},
 journal = {Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy},
 pages = {57--80},
 title = {What Sustains Wildlife Crime? Rhino Horn Trading and the Resilience of Criminal Networks},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Biggs D, Courchamp F, Martin R, Possingham HP},
 journal = {Science},
 pages = {1038--1039},
 title = {Legal Trade of Africa’s Rhino Horns},
 volume = {339},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Child B},
 journal = {South African Journal of Science},
 pages = {21--25},
 title = {The sustainable use approach could save South Africa’s rhinos},
 volume = {108},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Collins A, Fraser G, Snowball J.},
 journal = {Science},
 pages = {1167--1167},
 title = {Rhino poaching: supply and demand uncertain},
 volume = {340},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Crookes DJ, Blignaut JN},
 journal = {Journal for Nature Conservation},
 pages = {11--18},
 title = {Debunking the myth that a legal trade will solve the rhino horn crisis: A system dynamics model for market demand},
 volume = {28},
 year = {2015}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 address = {Pretoria},
 author = {DEA},
 institution = {Committee of Inquiry recommendations, Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = {Minister Edna Molewa on the Committee of Inquiry into the feasibility of a legal trade in rhino horn, or not},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Everatt KT, Andresen L, Ripple WJ, Kerley GI},
 journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment},
 pages = {65--67},
 title = {Rhino poaching may cause atypical trophic cascades},
 volume = {14},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Ferreira SM, Greaver C, Knight GA, Knight MH, Smit IPJ, Pienaar D},
 journal = {PLOS ONE},
 pages = {e0127783},
 title = {Disruption of rhino demography by poachers may lead to population declines in Kruger National Park, South Africa},
 volume = {10},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Ferreira SM, Okita-Ouma B.},
 journal = {Pachyderm},
 pages = {52--59},
 title = {A proposed framework for short-, medium-and long-term responses by range and consumer States to curb poaching for African rhino horn},
 volume = {51},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Ferreira SM, Pfab M, Knight M.},
 journal = {South African Journal of Science},
 pages = {1--8},
 title = {Management strategies to curb rhino poaching: Alternative options using a cost-benefit approach},
 volume = {110},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Haas TC, Ferreira SM.},
 journal = {Security Informatics},
 pages = {1},
 title = {Federated databases and actionable intelligence: using social network analysis to disrupt transnational wildlife trafficking criminal networks},
 volume = {4},
 year = {2015}
}
,@inbook{6557,
 address = {Mokala National Park, South Africa},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {RhODIS–DNA profiling and a DNA database as a tool to protect the rhino},
 editor = {Harper C},
 pages = {169--170},
 title = {Proceedings of the tenth meeting of the IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Humphreys J, Smith MLR},
 journal = {International Affairs},
 pages = {795--818},
 title = {The “rhinofication” of South African security},
 volume = {90},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Litchfield CA},
 journal = {Science},
 pages = {1168--1168},
 title = {Rhino poaching: apply conservation psychology},
 volume = {340},
 year = {2013}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 author = {Nadal A, Aguayo F},
 institution = {The Leverhulme Centre for the Study of Value, University of Manchester, UK},
 title = {Leonardo’s sailors: A review of the economic analysis of wildlife trade. LCSV Working Paper Series No. 6},
 year = {2014}
}
,@phdthesis{6557,
 author = {Olmedo A},
 school = {Imperial College London},
 title = {Evaluating behaviour change interventions: A case study in Vietnam},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Smith RJ, Walpole MJ},
 journal = {Oryx},
 pages = {251--256},
 title = {Should conservationists pay more attention to corruption?},
 volume = {39},
 year = {2005}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 address = {Pretoria, South Africa},
 author = {Taylor A, Brebner K, Coetzee R, Davies-Mostert H, Lindsey P, Shaw J, ‘t Sas-Rolfes M},
 institution = {Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)},
 title = {The viability of legalising trade in rhino horn in South Africa.},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Thomas R},
 journal = {TRAFFIC Bulletin},
 pages = {2},
 title = {Surge in rhinoceros poaching in South Africa},
 volume = {23},
 year = {2010}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 author = {Adcock K, editor},
 institution = {SADC Rhino Management Group Report},
 title = {(Confidential) Status and management of black rhino in South Africa and Namibia 1989 to March 1994},
 year = {1995}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 author = {Adcock K, et al. },
 institution = {Fish and Wildlife Service Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund},
 title = {An analysis of 18 years of SADC rhino management group population history data. SADC Rhino Management Group Report, funded by The U.S.},
 year = {2010}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 author = {Adcock K, editor},
 institution = {SADC Rhino Management Group Report},
 title = {(Confidential) Status and management of black rhino in Namibia, South Africa Zimbabwe, Botswana, Malawi and Zambia, January 2006 to December 2011},
 year = {2013}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 author = {Adcock K, editor},
 institution = {SADC Rhino Management Group Report for the South African Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = {Status and management of black rhino in South Africa January 2012 to December 2014},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Bennett, E.L.},
 journal = {Conservation Biology},
 number = {1},
 pages = {54–60. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12377},
 title = {Legal ivory trade in a corrupt world and its impact on African elephant populations},
 volume = {29},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Challender, D.W.S. and MacMillan, D.C.},
 journal = {Conservation Letters},
 pages = {484–494},
 title = {Poaching is more than an enforcement problem},
 volume = {7},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Ferreira SM, Greaver CC, Knight MH},
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {192– 204},
 title = {Assessing the population performance of the black rhinoceros in Kruger National Park},
 volume = {41},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Greaver C, Ferreira S, Slotow R},
 journal = {Austral Ecology},
 pages = {437–447},
 title = {Density-dependent regulation of the critically endangered black rhinoceros population in Ithala Game Reserve, South Africa},
 volume = {39},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Harley, E.H., Baumgarten, I., Cunningham, J. and O’Ryan, C.},
 journal = {Molecular Ecology},
 pages = {2981–2990},
 title = {Genetic variation and population structure in remnant populations of black rhinoceros, <i>Diceros bicornis</i>, in Africa},
 volume = {14},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Hitchins PM, Anderson JL},
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research },
 pages = {78–85},
 title = {Reproduction, population characteristics and management of the black rhinoceros <i>Diceros bicomis minor</i> in the Hluhluwe/Corridor/Umfolozi Game Reserve Complex},
 volume = {13},
 year = {1983}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Hrabar H, du Toit JT},
 journal = {Animal Conservation},
 pages = {259–267},
 title = {Dynamics of a protected black rhino (<i>Diceros bicornis</i>) population: Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa},
 volume = {8},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Knight M},
 journal = {Pachyderm},
 pages = {7–24},
 title = {African rhino specialist group report},
 volume = {53},
 year = {2013}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 author = {Knight MH, Balfour D, Emslie RH},
 institution = {Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = { Biodiversity management plan for the black rhinoceros (<i>Diceros bicornis</i>) in South Africa: 2011-2020},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Kotzé A, Dalton DL, du Toit R, Anderson N, Moodley Y},
 journal = {Conservation Genetics},
 pages = {1479–1489},
 title = {Genetic structure of the black rhinoceros (<i>Diceros bicornis</i>) in south-eastern Africa},
 volume = {15},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Law PR, Fike B, Lent PC},
 journal = {European Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {601–609},
 title = {Dynamics of an expanding black rhinoceros (<i>Diceros bicornis</i> minor) population},
 volume = {61},
 year = {2015}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 address = {Johannesburg, South Africa},
 author = {Lindsey PA, Taylor A},
 institution = {Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = {A Study on the Dehorning of African Rhinoceroses as a Tool to Reduce the Risk of Poaching},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Linklater WL, Hutcheson IR},
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {58–63},
 title = {Black rhinoceros are slow to colonize a harvested neighbour’s range},
 volume = {40},
 year = {2010}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Linklater WL, Swaisgood RR},
 journal = {The Journal of Wildlife Management},
 pages = {1059–1068},
 title = {Reserve size, conspecific density, and translocation success for black rhinoceros},
 volume = {72},
 year = {2008}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 address = {Giant’s Castle, South Africa},
 author = {Owen-Smith RN},
 title = {Overview of the population dynamics of large mammals. Pages 9–13 in Emslie R, editor. Proceedings of a SADC Rhino Management Group (RMG) Workshop on Biological Management to meet Continental and National Black Rhino Conservation Goals},
 year = {2001}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Rachlow JL, Berger J. },
 journal = {Animal Conservation },
 pages = {101–106},
 title = {Reproduction and population density: trade-offs for the conservation of rhinos in <i>situ</i>},
 volume = {1},
 year = {1998}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Schulze RE},
 journal = {Progress in Physical Geography},
 pages = {113–136},
 title = {Impacts of global climate change in a hydrologically vulnerable region: challenges to South African hydrologists},
 volume = {21},
 year = {1997}
}
,@book{6557,
 address = {London, UK},
 author = {Tetlock P, Gardner D},
 publisher = {Random House},
 title = {Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction},
 year = {2015}
}
,]
Send feedback about this assessment to SANBI

Lead agencies, Partners and Funders

See the partners page