Red List of South African Species

Alternatively, Explore species
| National Red List categories | Partners |
Least Concern (LC)
Assessors: Francois Deacon Dan Parker
Contributors: Claire Relton Andy Tutchings Jeanetta Selier Matthew Child Andri Marais
Reviewers: Julian Fennessy

Rationale

This subspecies remains widespread across the assessment region with a total estimated mature population of 11,746–15,024 individuals. Numbers are increasing and occupancy is expanding due in part to the game ranching industry in South Africa. Giraffe are highly favoured by most game ranches to add tourism value for the ranch. However, many exist outside the natural distribution range (extra-limital introductions) and may be intensively managed on properties that are too small for self-sustaining subpopulations (or could include extra-limital G. c. angolensis). If we exclude the private subpopulations and include only the subpopulations in national parks within the natural distribution range (Kruger, Augrabies Falls, Mapungubwe, Marakele and Mokala National Parks ) as a minimum count of mature population size, there are a minimum mature population size of 4,896–7,533 individuals. Data from 13 formally protected areas show an estimated population increase of of 54% over three generations (1985–2015). Thus, with no immediate threats severe enough to cause population decline in the foreseeable future, we continue to list this subspecies as Least Concern. Although some populations remain stable or are even increasing across the rest of this subspecies’ range, others may be threatened and thus there may be future population declines, highlighting the importance of South Africa as a stronghold for G. c. camelopardalis. Key interventions include protected area expansion and conservancy formation to create larger, more functional spaces for subpopulations, and the development of a Biodiversity Management Plan. As many private subpopulations are kept on small reserves or game farms, often outside of the species natural distribution range where they can cause habitat damage, conservationists and private landowners should work together to ensure Giraffe are stocked sustainably and do not impact on natural resources. 

Regional population effects: There is dispersal across regional boundaries in the transfrontier parks (Kgalagadi, Greater Limpopo and Greater Mapungubwe). Both Kgalagadi and Mapungubwe, however, originate from introductions from Namibia. For the latter, approximately 22 Giraffes were introduced to the Northern Tuli Game Reserve in the late 1980s and originated from two populations – about half were sourced from Langjan , South Africa, and the others from Namibia. For the majority of the population, there is no dispersal between countries and thus we assume that no rescue effects are possible.

Distribution

The Giraffe formerly occurred in arid and dry-savannah zones within sub-Saharan Africa, wherever trees (especially Acacia spp.) occurred. The natural range of the South African Giraffe probably consists of northern South Africa, southern Botswana, southeast Zimbabwe, and southwest Mozambique, all of which are either reintroduced individuals or descendants thereof (Marais et al. 2013a). In southern Africa, having been reintroduced to many parts of the range from which they were eliminated, Giraffe are currently common both inside and outside a number of protected areas in South Africa, as well as across the sub-region. Within the assessment region, the species naturally occurs in the savanna/woodland areas of the Mpumalanga Lowveld and north into the Limpopo Province, as well as westwards into the Northern Cape. It has been reintroduced into the North West. Additionally, it has been introduced into all other provinces, where it remains extra-limital. 

Though Lynch (1983) mentioned the possibility of Giraffe occurring naturally in the eastern and western Free State (Harrismith and Hoopstad districts, respectively), there is no reliable historical evidence of Giraffe presence in the Free State (Ansell 1972). This province was not included in the current distribution area of Giraffe (Dagg 1962). However, the Free State Provincial Authority initially imported five individuals in 1961 to the central Free State (Griesel 1961). Since then, many Giraffe have been brought into the Free State, regardless of their natural habitat preferences, namely the savannah biome in the lowveld with scattered sweet thorns (A. karroo). The reintroduction of Giraffe by Transvaal Nature Conservation (Hirst 1966; Lambrechts 1974) in the 1970s (and beyond) was due to their demand within public and private reserves. Skead (2007) contends that the Eastern Cape vegetation flourished in the absence of browsers like Giraffe and browsing by them could negatively influence the indigenous flora. The composition and distribution of plant types in the Ithala Game Reserve, KwaZulu-Natal, according to Bond and Loffell (2001) were changed by the presence of Giraffe. 

Although South African Giraffes were present in the region of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in the late 1880s, they were exterminated by European colonists. Since 1991, they have been successfully introduced to the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in the Northern Cape from Etosha National Park, Namibia (Kruger 1994). Subsequent to that extralimital translocation, South African Giraffe were moved from Kruger National Park to the Kgalagadi in an effort to increase genetic diversity (van der Walt, pers. comm.). As a consequence, potential admixture between the two subspecies might have contributed to the results in Bock et al. (2014). Given the lack of solid scientific data on the type(s) of Giraffes living in the Kgalagadi, we consider them to be an extralimital population not included in our population estimates.

Swaziland is probably outside of the natural range of South African Giraffes as Goodman and Tomkinson (1987), in an exhaustive review of the literature, concluded that the probability of Giraffes living in Swaziland prior to human reintroduction was exceedingly small. Marais et al. (2013b) and East (1999) have speculated that Giraffe might have lived in Swaziland, but present no evidence. As Goodman and Tomkinson (1987) comment, no reliable evidence or solid records exist that demonstrate Giraffes were indigenous to Swaziland in historic times, even if the habitat seemed suitable for their presence. In 1965, G. c. giraffa were moved to Swaziland from South Africa, with later imports of G. c. angolensis from Namibia and further importation of Giraffes from South Africa (Marais et al. 2013b). Swaziland has approximately 200 Giraffes in both protected areas and on private lands, but these Giraffes are considered extra-limital.

Range expansions are ongoing in South Africa because of the expanding game industry (Theron 2005), with more and more game owners wanting Giraffe on their farms based on aesthetic reasons, rather than natural management concerns. Deacon (unpubl. data) has estimated that at least 12,000 private game ranches exist in South Africa. 

The type specimen was a Giraffe killed in 1761 in southern Namibia, just north of the Orange River, in the vicinity of Warmbad (Dagg 2014), an area where the subspecies is now locally extinct. Analyses of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA loci (cytochrome b and the control region) reveal a fundamental divergence between northern and southern Giraffe populations in Africa. In addition, the distribution of two currently classified subspecies, G. c. angolensis and G. c. giraffa, and the taxonomic status of Botswana and Namibian populations may need to be redefined. It appears that a cryptic rift valley in Botswana’s Kalahari basin area during the Pleistocene acted as a strong barrier to gene flow between the Giraffe populations in central and northern Botswana. The separation of these populations shown for maternally inherited loci may need to be taken into account for future conservation efforts and in the development of appropriate management strategies, as well as for the assessment of the taxonomic status of many Giraffe populations in Africa (Bock et al. 2014). Thus the majority of Botswanan Giraffe would be considered G. c. angolensis and not G. c. giraffa as we initially thought. The taxonomic resolution of Zimbabwean Giraffe, however, remain uncertain. These findings are yet to be corroborated with nuclear DNA. East (1999) combined Angolan and South African Giraffes into one super-group called southern Giraffes, since he was not convinced that they were two separate taxa. Seymour (2001) had a limited sample size of Angolan Giraffes, and was also not convinced that Angolan and South African Giraffes were separate subspecies, but he recommended retaining the two subspecies designations pending further investigation. Brown et al. (2007) did not have samples from Botswana, but, recommend retaining a separation in taxonomic designation between the Angolan and South African Giraffes.

Population trend

Trend

Although many subspecies and populations are declining, South African Giraffes remain widespread throughout southern Africa. They reside in both protected areas and on private land, and a number of them have been translocated to extralimital areas in South Africa, as well as to other countries. South African Giraffes (G. c. giraffa) have been moved from South Africa to countries such as Zambia and Senegal, while Angolan Giraffes (G. c. angolensis) have been transferred from Namibia and Botswana to South Africa. East (1999) estimated the total African population of Giraffe at about 140,000 animals, predominantly in areas dominated by Acacia woodlands and shrublands. More recent estimates put the total population at less than 80,000 animals (Giraffe Conservation Foundation unpubl. data 2013). For G. c. giraffa, data from the four range countries (South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique) reveal that an estimated 21,553 South African Giraffes live in both government protected areas and on private land (F.unpubl. data), with an estimated increase of about 150–250% over three Giraffe generations (c. 30 years).


Within the assessment region, there are an estimated 7,630–11,079 individuals in national parks alone (4,896–7,533 mature). Kruger National Park comprises the bulk of the population, where there are currently an estimated 7,427–10,876 (2012 count, distance sampling) individuals (Ferreira et al. 2013). This subpopulation appears to be stable or increasing as it was estimated to be between 5,500 and 7,208 in Friedmann and Daly (2004). Provincial protected areas within the natural range add at least another 1,373 individuals (in 28 subpopulations; counts between 2013 and 2014). This yields a total of 9,003–12,452 individuals on protected areas, which corresponds to 5,672–8,467 mature individuals (assuming a 63–68% mature herd structure; F.Deacon unpubl. data).


In South Africa thousands of Giraffes populate the estimated 12,000 game farms and ranches across the country (Deacon unpubl. data). Many of these Giraffes were purchased from national parks and provincial nature reserves and are in-country translocations. In a number of cases, ranches and private nature reserves are moving this subspecies to regions outside of its historic natural range (Parker & Bernard 2005). In addition, Angolan Giraffes have been moved to some of the private game ranches in South Africa. Private subpopulations of Giraffe have been expanding and increasing within the assessment region. There is estimated to be between 11,299 and 13,850 on private farms across the country. Many of these Giraffe have been introduced into areas that historically may not have been part of the Giraffe’s natural range (extra-limital introduction), and are therefore not included in this assessment (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2014). There are an estimated 9,642 individuals occurring within the natural range (F.unpubl. data). Although many are suspected to be wild and free-roaming individuals (not captive bred or kept in enclosures, not supplementary fed and kept on adequately sized properties), some game ranches as small as 0.22 keep and breed Giraffe (F. Deacon unpubl. data). Average property size for privately owned Giraffe subpopulations is 68.7±km2 with a minimum of 0.12 and a maximum of 1,030 km2 (Endangered Wildlife Trust unpubl. data; N=properties), which demonstrates the wide range in management regimes for private Giraffe subpopulations. Similarly, average subpopulation size is 30±individuals (median = 16 individuals), ranging from 1–250 individuals (Endangered Wildlife Trust unpubl. data; N = 118 properties). If the Giraffe are relying only on the natural resources and no supplementary feeding, then a typical property size to sustain a viable population to breed successfully should be > 30 km2 in size (but will vary from biome to biome), taking into account the critical period when Giraffe experience feeding stress (July–September). This will limit the destruction of vegetation and possible mortalities. Prior to the introduction of Giraffe into an area outside of their natural distribution range, a proper habitat risk assessment should be conducted and a management plan which includes feeding and disease monitoring should be submitted.


Overall, there is a current (2013–2015) population estimate of between 18,645 and 22,094 South African Giraffes living in their natural habitat within the assessment region (on all land types). This equates to a mature population size of 11,746–15,024 individuals. Generation length is estimated to be between 10 and 14 years (Pacifici et al. 2013), making the three generation window 30–42 years. While no adequate long-term data are available to measure population trends over three generations, a sample of 13 formally protected areas, with long-term data over at least two generations, reveals an estimated population increase of 54% over the three generation period.

Threats

While some populations of Giraffe in southern African are increasing – although those in Botswana are not and little is known of Zimbabwe currently – populations of Giraffe in East, Central and West Africa have been decreasing, or are low in numbers, due to habitat degradation, habitat loss and poaching. For example, poaching and armed conflict across the range of the Reticulated Giraffe in southwestern Somalia, southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya has reduced the population by more than 80% to fewer than 5,000 individuals in the last 15 years (Giraffe Conservation Foundation unpubl. data 2013).


Within the assessment region of South Africa, the main threat is habitat fragmentation and degradation. The Giraffe’s habitat is increasingly fragmented through development, urban sprawl and agricultural intensification. This can cause inbreeding and a weakening of the resilience of the population as a whole. The latest DNA results indicate that genetic diversity within South African Giraffe might be very low because of these small islands of conservation areas and little effort to conserve pure genetic material within the game ranches and conservation islands (P. Grobler pers. comm. 2015). Another potential threat is through hybridisation of different subspecies (Namibian animals mixing with lowveld animals), which may threaten the genetic integrity of the southern subspecies G. c. giraffa. Both the Kglagadi Transfrontier Park and the Tuli Game Nature Reserve contain introduced G. c. angolensis and G. c. giraffa. Because the former subspecies is extralimital to the area, while the latter subspecies is endemic to the area, the combined population creates hazards for conservation management decisions. Whether or not any progeny have been produced, and whether or not any such offspring might be fertile is unknown. A similar situation exists on game farms and ranches. Habitat analysis examining the sustainability of the resource base, along with the animals on the property, is rarely performed prior to movement of animals.

Uses and trade

Giraffe are utilised non-consumptively for ecotourism and consumptively for trophy hunting. The tails are also used by traditional leaders and tribesmen for pride and status. Live animals are also traded privately and at government sanctioned game auctions distributed across South Africa (for example, sold for R32,000 per individual, Buffalo Ranch Game Auction, 9 October 2015; F. Deacon pers. obs.). Trading of Giraffe is controlled by each province’s nature conservation offices. Trade and utilisation are not expected to impact negatively on the population. Rather, legal sustainable hunting contributes to the overall increase in Giraffe numbers across the country, where, after compliance with certain regulations, the owners of wildlife ranches, private game reserves and game farms are allowed to keep Giraffes on their land for commercial purposes such as ecotourism, live sales and hunting. The wildlife ranching industry is unique to southern Africa. However, little research has been done to evaluate the natural resources that are necessary to sustain the animals. Thus, few of these privately owned wildlife species receive proper attention regarding their needs in extensive farming practices.

Although the private sector has been largely responsible for restoring this species to many parts of its former natural range in South Africa, ranchers and private nature reserves are also introducing this species widely outside of its natural range (Parker & Bernard 2005). Deacon et al. (2012) document the damage Giraffe can cause within small, fenced game farms, and they are especially destructive towards certain Acacia species (Bond & Loffell 2001; Parker & Bernard 2005). However, there is no real evidence of negative effects caused by Giraffe in the Eastern Cape. Anecdotal reports from parts of the Karoo (Asante Sane near Graaff-Reinet) indicate that there is insufficient food for them during the winter and they require supplemental feeding (D. Parker pers. obs. 2006). Jacobs (2008 unpub. data) showed very little impact of Giraffe browsing on two species of Schotia in the Eastern Cape. Similarly, D. Parker (unpubl. data) indicated that certain tree species may be targeted (depending on location) but that Giraffe numbers were not high enough to result in the same sort of effects that Bond & Loffell (2001) observed in KwaZulu-Natal if overstocked. Thus, a nuanced management approach is required for Giraffe in different habitat types and depending on Giraffe density. 

Regulation of translocations is required to enhance the conservation value of current extra-limital movement. Permits should be issued on a case-by-case basis following appropriate assessment and used to restore Giraffe to their historical range (Bernard & Parker 2006). A big concern is that there are no regulations or guidelines set for minimum habitat requirements for Giraffes, and currently the literature on the subject is lacking specific scientific information for managing Giraffe populations nationally and specifically in arid regions. Wildlife ranchers may also be hybridising this subspecies with exotic subspecies or ecotypes to increase sale or hunting value, which should be legislated against. However, studies confirming (or refuting) the existence and extent of the practice are required.

Conservation

This species occurs in many protected areas within the assessment region of South Africa and, given that it is an attractive ecotourism and trophy-hunting animal, the private sector will continue to stock, trade and increase their numbers. Private landowners should be encouraged to form conservancies (by removing internal fences and increasing the overall area available to Giraffes) to reduce the effects of habitat fragmentation and reduce habitat degradation from overstocking this species. Unfortunately, little is known regarding the minimum resource (and space) requirements for Giraffe subpopulations to function sufficiently without support and thus, currently, law officials cannot enforce regulations regarding habitat requirements. Defining the home range requirements of Giraffe within conservation areas might provide the necessary information regarding the requirements for Giraffe to be self-sustaining outside protected areas. Determination of seasonal variation in home range can assist game managers and nature conservation officials to make informed decisions regarding the well-being of Giraffe during critical periods. Little exists in the literature on Giraffe spatial ecology (in fenced off game reserves and game ranches) such as daily distances, home ranges and the influence temperature, rainfall and altitude might have on Giraffe. For this reason, more research is required on these topics.

Regulations should be put in place to prevent the importation and exportation of incongruent ecotypes or subspecies if the taxonomic resolution of such subspecies can be confirmed. Similarly, a large scale ‘Stud Book’ for Giraffe in South Africa could be established that would help to prevent inbreeding. These interventions could be tied together by the drafting and adoption of a Biodiversity Management Plan for Giraffe. 

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:
  • Management guidelines are currently being drafted by Deacon (2015) to advise reserves and private Giraffe owners on how to best manage the Giraffe within natural habitats without degrading or affecting other species negatively.
  • Mixing Giraffe ecotypes and subspecies through translocation and hybridisation should be avoided. Legislation should be in place to prevent the importation or exportation of incongruent Giraffe populations. 
Research priorities:
  • Research providing a better estimate of Giraffe numbers on private land and the effects of this subspecies being extra-limitally introduced outside the natural distribution range (including impacts on vegetation and ecosystem processed) is necessary to inform management decisions.
  • Molecular and genetic research is needed to resolve subspecies status, and delineate their geographical distributions, and thus inform legislation regarding translocation. 
See Bercovitch and Deacon (2015) for further research topics. 

Encouraged citizen actions:
  • Upload sightings of Giraffe outside protected areas to GiraffeSpotter (www.Giraffespotter.org): a citizen scientist tool of the Giraffe Conservation Foundation which seeks to engage people to build a greater awareness about Giraffe distribution and status across Africa. These data also help the IUCN Giraffe and Okapi Specialist Group and the Giraffe Conservation Foundation to perform Red List assessments. 
  • Participate in the World Giraffe Day – 21 June – by creating awareness and raising support for Giraffe conservation.
  • Invite lecturers and researchers working on Giraffe projects to survey private land. 
  • Drop fences to form conservancies.
  • Landowners are encouraged to provide detailed information on their Giraffe herds to the Giraffe Conservation Forum. 

References 

[@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{5228,
 address = {Pretoria, South Africa},
 author = {Driver, A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.N., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt, P.A., Harris, L. and Maze, K.},
 institution = {South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = {National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report},
 year = {2012}
}
,@book{6236,
 author = {IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee},
 title = {Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 11},
 year = {2014}
}
,@inbook{6236,
 address = {Amsterdam, The Netherlands},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {<i>Damaliscus pygargus</i>},
 editor = {David, J. and Lloyd, P.},
 publisher = {Academic Press},
 title = {The Mammals of Africa},
 year = {2013}
}
,@book{16484,
 address = {Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK},
 author = {East, R. (compiler)},
 publisher = {IUCN},
 title = {African Antelope Database 1998},
 year = {1999}
}
,@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}
}
,@inbook{41382,
 address = {Washington, D. C., USA},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {Order Insectivora},
 editor = {Heim de Balsac, H. and Meester, J.},
 pages = {1--29},
 publisher = {Smithsonian Institution Press},
 title = {The Mammals of Africa: An Identification Manual},
 year = {1977}
}
,@techreport{550,
 address = {Skukuza, South Africa},
 author = {Ferreira S, Gaylard, A, Greaver, C, Hayes, J, Cowell C, Ellis G.},
 institution = {Scientific Services, SANParks},
 title = {Animal abundances in Parks 2012/2013},
 year = {2013}
}
,@book{4221,
 address = {San Diego, California, USA},
 author = {Kingdon, J.},
 publisher = {Academic Press},
 title = {The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals},
 year = {1997}
}
,@inbook{5229,
 author = {},
 booktitle = {Buying and selling wild animals},
 editor = {Bothma J du P, du Toit JT, van Rooyen J},
 pages = {619–639 },
 publisher = {Van Schaik Publishers},
 title = {Game Ranch Management},
 year = {2010}
}
,@book{9194,
 address = {Malabar},
 author = {Dagg, A.I. and Foster, J.B.},
 publisher = {R.E. Krieger Publishing Co.},
 title = {The Giraffe: its anatomy, behavior and ecology. Second Edition},
 year = {1982}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Hassanin, A., Ropiquet, A., Gourmand, A.-L., Chardonnet, B. and Rigoulet, J.},
 journal = {Comptes Rendus Biologies},
 pages = {265--274},
 title = {Mitochondrial DNA variability in <i>Giraffa camelopardalis</i>: consequences for taxonomy, phylogeography and conservation of giraffes in West and central Africa},
 volume = {330},
 year = {2007}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Brown, D.M., Brenneman, R.A., Georgiadis, N.J., Koepfli, K.-P., Pollinger, J. P., Mila, B., Louis Jr., E., Grether, G.F., Jakobs, D.K. and Wayne, R.K.},
 journal = {BMC Biology},
 pages = {57. DOI: 10.1186/1741--7007--5--57},
 title = {Extensive population genetic structure in the giraffe},
 volume = {5},
 year = {2007}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Bock, F., Fennessy, J., Bidon, T., Tutchings, A., Marais, A., Deacon, F. and Janke, A.},
 journal = {BMC Evolutionary Biology},
 pages = {219},
 title = {Mitochondrial sequences reveal a clear separation between Angolan and South African giraffe along a cryptic rift valley},
 volume = {14},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Bercovitch FB, Deacon F},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {135--146},
 title = {Gazing at a giraffe gyroscope: where are we going?},
 volume = {53},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Bernard RT, Parker DM},
 journal = {South African Journal of Science},
 pages = {117},
 title = {The use of archaeological and ethnographical information to supplement the historical record of the distribution of large mammalian herbivores in South Africa},
 volume = {102},
 year = {2006}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Berry PS, Bercovitch FB},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 title = {Seasonal and geographical influences on the feeding ecology of giraffes in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia: 1973–2014},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Berry PSM},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {77--83},
 title = {Range movements of giraffe in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia},
 volume = {16},
 year = {1978}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Bond WJ, Loffell D.},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {286--294},
 title = {Introduction of giraffe changes acacia distribution in a South African savanna},
 volume = {39},
 year = {2001}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Dagg AI.},
 title = {Food preferences of the giraffe},
 year = {1960}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Dagg AI},
 journal = {Mammalia},
 pages = {497--505},
 title = {The distribution of the giraffe in Africa},
 volume = {26},
 year = {1962}
}
,@book{9194,
 author = {Dagg AI.},
 publisher = {Cambridge University Press.},
 title = {Giraffe: Biology, Behaviour and Conservation},
 year = {2014}
}
,@phdthesis{9194,
 author = {Deacon F},
 school = {University of the Free State},
 title = {The spatial ecology, habitat preferences and diet selection of giraffe (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa</i>) in the Kalahari region of South Africa},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Deacon F, van Wyk TC, Smit GN},
 journal = {Giraffa },
 pages = {14--15},
 title = {Movement patterns and impact of Giraffe (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis</i>) on the woody plants of a small fenced area in the central Free State},
 volume = {6},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Du Toit JT},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {55--61},
 title = {Feeding-height stratification among African browsing ruminants},
 volume = {28},
 year = {1990}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Fennessy J.},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {318--327},
 title = {Home range and seasonal movements of <i>Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis</i> in the northern Namib Desert},
 volume = {47},
 year = {2009}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Fennessy J, Bock F, Tutchings A, Brenneman R, Janke A},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {635--640},
 title = {Mitochondrial DNA analyses show that Zambia’s South Luangwa Valley giraffe (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis thornicrofti</i>) are genetically isolated},
 volume = {51},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Goodman PS, Tomkinson AJ},
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {28--30},
 title = {The past distribution of giraffe in Zululand and its implications for reserve management},
 volume = {17},
 year = {1987}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Griesel J},
 journal = {African Journal of Wildlife},
 pages = {121--125},
 title = {A new game sanctuary for the Orange Free State, The Willem Pretorius Game Reserve},
 volume = {15},
 year = {1961}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Hirst SM},
 journal = {Journal of the South African Veterinary Association},
 pages = {85},
 title = {Immobilization in the Transvaal giraffe, <i>Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa</i>, using an oripavin derivative},
 volume = {37},
 year = {1966}
}
,@phdthesis{9194,
 author = {Kruger JW},
 school = {University of Pretoria},
 title = {The feeding ecology and behaviour of re-introduced giraffe (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis</i>) in the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park},
 year = {1994}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Lambrechts AW.},
 journal = {Journal of the Southern African Wildlife Management Association},
 pages = {1--37},
 title = {The numerical status of sixteen game species in the Transvaal, excluding the Kruger National Park},
 volume = {64},
 year = {1974}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Langman VA},
 journal = {South African Journal of Science},
 pages = {200--203},
 title = {The immobilization and capture of giraffe},
 volume = {69},
 year = {1973}
}
,@techreport{9194,
 author = {Lynch C David. },
 institution = {No 18, National Museum},
 title = {The mammals of the Orange Free State.},
 year = {1983}
}
,@techreport{9194,
 address = {Windhoek, Namibia.},
 author = {Marais AJ, Fennessy S, Fennessy J},
 institution = {Giraffe Conservation Foundation},
 title = {Country profile: A rapid assessment of the giraffe conservation status in the Republic of Mozambique.},
 year = {2013}
}
,@techreport{9194,
 address = {Windhoek, Namibia},
 author = {Marais AJ, Fennessy S, Fennessy J},
 institution = {Giraffe Conservation Foundation},
 title = {Country profile: A rapid assessment of the giraffe conservation status in the Kingdom of Swaziland},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {McQualter KN, Chase MJ, Fennessy JT, McLeod SR, Leggett KE},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {99--102},
 title = {Home ranges, seasonal ranges and daily movements of giraffe (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa</i>) in northern Botswana},
 volume = {54},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Parker DM, Bernard RTF},
 journal = {Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {203--210},
 title = {The diet and ecological role of giraffe (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis</i>) introduced to the Eastern Cape, South Africa},
 volume = {267},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {Pellew RA},
 journal = {Journal of Applied Ecology},
 pages = {141--159},
 title = {Food consumption and energy budgets of the giraffe},
 year = {1984}
}
,@phdthesis{9194,
 author = {Seymour R},
 school = {University of Kent},
 title = {Patterns of subspecies diversity in the giraffe, <i>Giraffa camelopardalis</i> (L. 1758): Comparison of systematic methods and their implications for conservation policy},
 year = {2001}
}
,@inbook{9194,
 author = {Boshoff  and Kerley  and Lloyd },
 booktitle = {Historical Incidence of the Larger Land Mammals in the broader Eastern Cape, Second Edition},
 editor = {Skead, C.J.},
 publisher = {Port Elizabeth: Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.},
 title = {Historical Incidence of the Larger Land Mammals in the broader Eastern Cape, Second Edition},
 year = {2007}
}
,@book{9194,
 address = {London, UK},
 author = {Spinage CA},
 publisher = {Collins},
 title = {The book of the giraffe},
 year = {1968}
}
,@phdthesis{9194,
 author = {Theron M Elizabeth},
 school = {University of the Free State},
 title = {Voedingsgedrag van kameelperde (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis</i>) in die sentrale Vrystaat},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{9194,
 author = {van der Jeugd HP, Prins HH. },
 journal = {Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {15--21},
 title = {Movements and group structure of giraffe (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis</i>) in Lake Manyara National Park, Tanzania},
 volume = {251},
 year = {2000}
}
,]
Send feedback about this assessment to SANBI

Lead agencies, Partners and Funders

See the partners page