Red List of South African Species

Alternatively, Explore species
| National Red List categories | Partners |
Least Concern (LC)
Assessors: Jurie du Plessis Lourens Swanepoel Molly McDonough Corrie Shoeman
Contributors: Matthew Child Nico Avenant Margaret Avery Rod Baxter Duncan MacFadyen Ara Monadjem Guy Palmer Peter Taylor Beryl Wilson
Reviewers: Jurie du Plessis Lourens Swanepoel Molly McDonough Corrie Shoeman

Rationale

Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution within the assessment region, abundant population, ability to live in a wide range of habitats, including agricultural landscapes, and because there are no major threats that could cause population decline. It may become an agricultural pest on grain-growing lands during some periods where populations can rapidly increase under optimal food conditions, which could result in local persecutions. Selective chemical control or biocontrol of population explosions through the use of Barn Owls (Tyto alba) are potentially effective and target-specific methods that are currently available and should be encouraged as techniques for holistic management .

Regional population effects: Rescue effect is possible through dispersal from Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Immigration is unlikely to decrease.

Distribution

Endemic to Africa, the global distribution for this species ranges from Tanzania in the north to South Africa and from eastern Namibia and Angola to western and northern Mozambique. It is widely distributed in the Zambezian Woodland biotic zone and in parts of the South-West Arid and Highveld biotic zones (Dempster 2013). It occurs widely from the equator to about 30°S, including the lowveld of Swaziland and northeastern KwaZulu-Natal (Dempster 2013). It occurs in the northern and central parts of Namibia, throughout Botswana and Zimbabwe and in Mozambique south of the Zambezi River (Skinner & Chimimba 2005).

In the assessment area, it occurs in South Africa throughout the North West and Limpopo provinces (Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Power 2014), in most of Mpumalanga (except the south-central parts; Skinner & Chimimba 2005) and in the southern and western parts of the Free State (Lynch 1983; Skinner & Chimimba 2005). In the Northern Cape, most records are restricted to a strip to the north of the Orange River (Skinner & Chimimba 2005) although Avery and Avery (2011) have listed records spanning further westwards. It is generally restricted to the northeastern parts of KwaZulu-Natal (Skinner & Chimimba 2005), with Avery et al. (2002) reporting a slight range expansion for these species to the south, but these records are still to be verified (see Monadjem et al. 2015). It occurs in the northern half of Swaziland (Monadjem 1997a; Skinner & Chimimba 2005) and is currently considered to be absent from Lesotho (Lynch 1994; Ambrose 2006). In the Free State Province, this species has been recorded from Tussen-die-Riviere Nature Reserve (Ferreira & Avenant 2003).

Population trend

Trend

This species is relatively common, exhibiting expected cyclic fluctuations of population abundance (Avenant 2011; Dempster 2013). It is often the most common small mammal species in an area (Linzey & Kesner 1997; Power 2014). Its population numbers and frequency of occurrence may vary with habitat or environmental conditions. It was the most common species in habitats that were frequently burned, compared to unburned habitat, in the Kruger National Park (Korn 1981) and Nysvley (Korn 1987). In the Okavango Delta, Plavsic (2014) found that numbers in an unburned site were marginally higher compared to numbers in a burned site for six months post-burning, thereafter the pattern was reversed. In small-holder agricultural systems of the Vhembe District, Limpopo Province, it reached higher abundances in the wetter areas (Vyeboom village, minimum number alive – 30 animals / ha), than the dryer areas (Ka-Ndengeza villages, minimum number alive – 11 animals / ha; L.H. Swanepoel, L.N. Nembudani & P.J. Taylor unpubl. data). In commercial agro-ecosystems of the Free State Province, populations can reach high densities (minimum number alive – up to 150 animals / ha; L.H. Swanepoel & M. Keith, unpubl. data), while in natural grassland (Sandveld Nature Reserve) it can be the dominant species (minimum number alive – 25 animals / ha; L.H. Swanepoel & M. Keith, unpubl. data). On the Highveld grasslands it often surprisingly outnumbers the Highveld Gerbil (G. brantsii) (Power 2014). At Nylsvley, abundance varied from 6% (in old fields; least common of the five species sampled) to 61% (in burnt Acacia woodland; most common of the five species sampled) (Korn 1987).

Threats

There are no major threats to this species. During population explosions it may become an agricultural pest in some areas, which could result in persecution (Verdoorn 2010; von Maltitz et al. 2014). Pest control depends on the farming set-up, but mostly takes the form of rodenticides, chemical seed treatment or habitat modification. These control actions can have negative effects on other non-pest rodent species (Makundi & Massawe 2011), as well as the secondary predators feeding on rodents (Taylor et al. 2012). This species may be a reservoir for the bubonic plague (Dempster 2013), however, it is unlikely that it is persecuted for this, as it does not usually enter human establishments.

Uses and trade

This species is not known to be traded or utilised in any form.

Conservation

This species is present in many protected areas within the assessment region, for example, Mkhuze Game Reserve, Phinda Private Game Reserve, Kruger National Park, and healthy populations are known to exist in the Sandveld Nature Reserve, Free State (L.H. Swanepoel & M. Keith, unpubl. data). While no specific interventions seem to be necessary for its conservation, careful attention should be paid to the secondary impact of pest management. It is suggested that management of pest Highveld Gerbils be done using ecologically-based rodent management principles (Taylor et al. 2012). These include responsible use of chemicals, rodenticides, natural predation (biocontrols), habitat modification and intensive communal trapping (Makundi & Massawe 2011). In a study conducted on G. afra in the Western Cape, Barn Owl control was found to be twice as effective for controlling the gerbil population, compared to the use of poison (Potter 2004). Barn Owls respond to prey explosions by increasing reproduction (Potter 2004; Makundi & Massawe 2011). This management intervention also saves farmers the cost of buying poison and prevents the mortality of non-target species, including domestic stock.

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:
  • Although the likelihood of success should still be established for G. leucogaster, Barn Owls could potentially be used to control population explosions of this species in cropland. This should be encouraged as part of a holistic management intervention (Verdoorn 2010). To increase the potential utility of Barn Owls to manage G. leucogaster, perches should be erected in crop fields and nesting boxes in appropriate sites close to the fields.
Research priorities:
  • The practicalities and effectiveness of the use of Barn Owls as a population control method for this species.
  • Taxonomic resolution of the Gerbilliscus genus.
Encouraged citizen actions:
  • Report sightings on virtual museum platforms (for example, iSpot and MammalMAP), especially outside protected areas.
  • Install Barn Owl nest boxes and perches in crop fields to encourage biocontrol during population explosions.

References 

[@book{275,
 address = {Cambridge},
 author = {Skinner, J.D. and Chimimba, C.T.},
 publisher = {Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom},
 title = {The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion},
 year = {2005}
}
,@inbook{13974,
 address = {Baltimore, USA},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {Superfamily Muroidea},
 editor = {Musser, G.G. and Carleton, M.D.},
 pages = {894--1531},
 publisher = {The John Hopkins University Press},
 title = {Mammal Species of the World: a geographic and taxonomic reference},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{14262,
 author = {Avery, D.M., Avery, G. and Roberts, A.},
 journal = {African Zoology},
 pages = {131--140},
 title = {A contribution from barn owl pellets to known micromammalian distributions in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa},
 volume = {37},
 year = {2002}
}
,@article{14262,
 author = {Ferreira, S.M. and Avenant, N.L.},
 journal = {Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein},
 pages = {21--30},
 title = {Modelling the effects of trap-spacing on small mammal community descriptors in grasslands at Tussen-die-Riviere Nature Reserve, Free State Province, South Africa},
 volume = {19},
 year = {2003}
}
,@book{14262,
 address = {Berlin, Germany},
 author = {Monadjem, A., Taylor, P.J., Denys, C. and Cotterill, F.P.D.},
 publisher = {De Gruyter},
 title = {Rodents of Sub-Saharan Africa: A Biogeographic and Taxonomic Synthesis. },
 year = {2015}
}
,@book{14262,
 address = {Durban, South Africa},
 author = {De Graaff, G},
 publisher = {Butterworths},
 title = {The Rodents of Southern Africa},
 year = {1981}
}
,@article{136713,
 author = {Lynch, C.D.},
 journal = {Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein},
 pages = {1--218},
 title = {The mammals of the Orange Free State, South Africa},
 volume = {18},
 year = {1983}
}
,@article{569,
 author = {Power RJ},
 title = {The Distribution and Status of Mammals in the North West Province.},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{573,
 author = {Monadjem A},
 journal = {South African Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {23–26},
 title = {Stomach contents of 19 species of small mammals from Swaziland.},
 volume = {32},
 year = {1997}
}
,@article{5576,
 author = {Delcros, G., Taylor, P.J., and Schoeman, M.C.},
 journal = {Mammalia},
 number = {1},
 pages = {1--14},
 title = {Ecological correlates of small mammal assemblage structure at different spatial scales in the savannah biome of South Africa},
 volume = {79},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{5576,
 author = {Rautenbach A, Dickerson T, Schoeman MC.},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {30--40},
 title = {Diversity of rodent and shrew assemblages in different vegetation types of the savannah biome in South Africa: no evidence for nested subsets or competition},
 volume = {52},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{5628,
 author = {Monadjem A. },
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology },
 pages = {64--72},
 title = {Habitat preferences and biomasses of small mammals in Swaziland},
 volume = {35},
 year = {1997}
}
,@article{6269,
 author = {Lynch CD},
 journal = {Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein},
 pages = {177–241.},
 title = {The mammals of Lesotho.},
 volume = { 10},
 year = {1994}
}
,@article{11493,
 author = {Kern NG},
 journal = {Koedoe},
 pages = {125--157},
 title = {The influence of fire on populations of small mammals of the Kruger National Park},
 volume = {24},
 year = {1981}
}
,@article{12865,
 author = {Makundi RH, Massawe AW.},
 journal = {Wildlife Research },
 pages = {588–595},
 title = {Ecologically based rodent management in Africa: potential and challenges},
 volume = {38},
 year = {2011}
}
,@phdthesis{21511,
 author = {Potter L.},
 school = {University of Cape Town},
 title = { Raptors for rodent control: Is the Barn Owl a viable control agent for pest rodents on South African farmlands?},
 year = {2004}
}
,@book{21511,
 address = {National University of Lesotho, Roma},
 author = {Ambrose D},
 publisher = {House 9 Publications},
 title = {Lesotho annotated bibliography. Section 168: mammals including annotated species lists.},
 year = {2006}
}
,@article{21511,
 author = {Avenant N},
 journal = {Wildlife Research},
 pages = {626–639},
 title = {The potential utility of rodents and other small mammals as indicators of ecosystem ’integrity’ of South African grasslands.},
 volume = {38},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{21511,
 author = {Avery DM, Avery G},
 journal = {African Natural History},
 pages = {9–39},
 title = {Micromammals in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa, past and present.},
 volume = {7},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{21511,
 author = {Korn H},
 journal = {Oecologia},
 pages = {410 –413},
 title = {Densities and biomasses of non-fossorial southern African savanna rodents during the dry season},
 volume = {72},
 year = {1987}
}
,@article{21511,
 author = {Verdoorn GH},
 title = {Environmentally compatible rodent management for agriculture. Griffon Poison Information Centre},
 year = {2010}
}
,@article{21511,
 author = {von Maltitz E, Kirsten F, Malebana P},
 journal = {SA Grain},
 pages = {106–107},
 title = {Update on gerbil management in maize},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2014}
}
,@book{21516,
 address = {London, UK},
 author = {Dempster ER},
 publisher = {Bloomsbury Publishing},
 title = {<i>Gerbilliscus leucogaster</i> Bushveld gerbil. Pages 279–281 in Happold DCD, editor. Mammals of Africa: Volume III: Rodents, Hares and Rabbits},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{21516,
 author = {Linzey AV, Kesner MH},
 journal = {Journal of Zoology (London)},
 pages = {137–152},
 title = {Small mammals of a woodland savannah ecosystem in Zimbabwe. I. Density and habitat occupancy patterns},
 volume = {243},
 year = {1997}
}
,@article{21516,
 author = {Perrin MR, Swanepoel P},
 journal = {South African Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {218–227},
 title = {Breeding biology of the bushveld gerbil <I>Tatera leucogaster</I> in relation to diet, rainfall and life history theory},
 volume = {22},
 year = {1987}
}
,@article{21516,
 author = {Plavsic MJ},
 journal = {Animal Conservation},
 pages = {573–582},
 title = {Proximate and ultimate drivers of smallmammal recolonization after fire: microhabitat conditions, rainfall and species traits},
 volume = {17},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{21516,
 author = {Taylor PJ, et al},
 journal = {Wildlife Research},
 pages = {51–61},
 title = {Experimental treatment-control studies of ecologically based rodent management in Africa: balancing conservation and pest management},
 volume = {39},
 year = {2012}
}
,]
Send feedback about this assessment to SANBI

Lead agencies, Partners and Funders

See the partners page