Cameroon, 2007
Reports > Loxodonta africana > 2007 > Africa > Central Africa > Cameroon All Years for Cameroon: 2013 — 2007 — 2002 — 1998 — 19952007 Summary Totals for Cameroon
| Data Category | Definite | Probable | Possible | Speculative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other Dung Counts | 0 | 726 | 295 | 0 |
| Informed Guesses | 179 | 0 | 4,670 | 1,320 |
| Other Guesses | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8,197 |
| Totals 2007 | 179 | 726 | 4,965 | 9,517 |
Interpretation of Changes in Estimates from Previous Report
| Cause of Change | Definite | Probable | Possible | Speculative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repeat Survey | 0 | -368 | +219 | 0 |
| New Population | 0 | 0 | +1,405 | +345 |
| Different Technique | 0 | +178 | +147 | -157 |
| New Guess | +175 | 0 | -2,212 | +1,025 |
| Data Degraded | -2,002 | -2,142 | -3,610 | +5,144 |
| Totals | -1,827 | -2,332 | -4,052 | +6,357 |
Area of Range Covered by Each Data Category (km²)
| Data Category | Known Range | Possible Range | Total Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other Dung Counts | 1,503 | 0 | 1,503 |
| Informed Guesses | 7,767 | 734 | 8,501 |
| Other Guesses | 17,269 | 26,597 | 43,865 |
| Unassessed Range | 31,842 | 32,860 | 64,702 |
| Totals | 58,381 | 60,190 | 118,571 |
Cameroon: Elephant Estimates
| Cause of | Survey Details 2 | Number of Elephants | Area | Map Location | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input Zone | Change 1 | Type | Reliab. | Year | Estimate | 95% C.L. | Source | PFS 3 | (km²) | Lon. | Lat. |
| Abong-Mbang Forest Reserve | - | OG3 | E | 1994 | 100 | A. Ekobo, pers. comm., 1994 | 2 | 1,540 | 13.1E | 4.2N | |
| Bayang-Mbo Wildlife Sanctuary | RS | DC2 | D | 2001 | 457 | Bechem & Nchanji, 2001 | 3 | 662 | 9.6E | 5.3N | |
| Benoué National Park | - | IG3 | E | 1991 | 540 | DFPN, 1991 | 2 | 1,800 | 13.8E | 8.3N | |
| Bouba Ndjidah National Park | - | IG3 | E | 1991 | 660 | DFPN, 1991 | 2 | 2,200 | 14.7E | 8.6N | |
| Boumba-Bek National Park | NG | IG3 | D | 2004 | 318 | Blake, 2005 | 2 | 2,383 | 15.0E | 2.7N | |
| Campo (South) National Park | - | DC2 | C | 2001 | 548 | 255 | Bekhuis & Prins, 2003 | 3 | 648 | 10.1E | 2.3N |
| Dja Faunal Reserve | DD | IG3 | E | 1995 | 1,500 | 500* | M.N. Tchamba, pers. comm., 1995 | 2 | 5,260 | 13.0E | 3.1N |
| Faro National Park | - | IG3 | E | 1991 | 60 | Tchamba, 1993 | 2 | 3,300 | 12.7E | 8.2N | |
| Korup National Park | DD | DC3 | E | 1993 | 425 | 271 | Powell, quest. reply, 1993 | 2 | 1,259 | 9.0E | 5.2N |
| Lobéké National Park | DD | DC2 | E | 1993 | 3,719 | 2,125 | Ekobo, 1995 | 2 | 1,985 | 15.9E | 2.3N |
| Ma'an Region | - | IG3 | D | 2000 | 4 | 10* | Matthews & Matthews, 2000 | 3 | 654 | 10.4E | 2.3N |
| Mengame Wildlife Sanctuary | NP | IG3 | D | 2003 | 1,354 | 269 | Halford et al., 2003 | 2 | 1,425 | 12.3E | 2.3N |
| Mongokele Forest Reserve | - | DC2 | E | 1991 | 773 | 53 | A. Ekobo, pers. comm., 1994 | 3 | 850 | 16.0E | 2.0N |
| Mt. Cameroon | DT | DC3 | C | 2003 | 178 | 148 | Ekobo, 2003 | 3 | 676 | 9.2E | 4.2N |
| Nki Forest Reserve | - | DC3 | D | 1998 | 2,178 | A. Ekobo, pers. comm., 1998 | 2 | 1,815 | 14.5E | 2.4N | |
| Sudanian Area | - | IG3 | E | 1991 | 360 | DFPN, 1991 | 1 | 24,985 | 13.7E | 8.3N | |
| Waza National Park | NG | IG3 | D | 2002 | 475 | 1025* | Saleh et al., 2002 | 2 | 1,700 | 14.7E | 11.3N |
| Yabassi Area | NP | IG3 | D | 2002 | 63 | WWF Cameroon, 2003 | 2 | 2,425 | 10.3E | 4.5N | |
| Yoko Area | NP | OG3 | E | 1999 | 60 | T. Sánchez Ariño, pers. comm., 2004 | 4 | 25 | 12.4E | 5.6N | |
* Range of informed guess
1 Key to Causes of Change (only tracked since 2007): DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS ́ denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); –––: No Change
2 Key to Survey Types: AC: Aerial Count, not specified; AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; EX: Extrapolation from GIS; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A-E (best to worst) as outlined in this table
3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.