Table 1: Census statistics and estimated number of lions in Queen Elizabeth national park, Murchison Falls national park and Kidepo Valley national park, Uganda
| Protected area |
Year (s) |
Area covered |
Number |
Total area |
Censu |
Est. |
Estimated |
| |
|
during |
of lions |
of park |
s |
in |
Total
pop. |
| |
|
census |
found |
|
Total |
area |
|
| Murchison Falls |
2000/02* |
371.5kmL |
45 |
3,860 kmL |
|
|
|
| North |
|
|
|
|
64 |
130 |
181-467 |
| Murchison Falls |
2000/02* |
568.9 kmL |
19 |
3,860 kmL |
|
|
|
| South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Murchison Falls |
2003/04* |
<350 km2 |
32 |
3,860 km2 |
32 |
? |
347? |
| North |
|
|
|
|
|
|
At most |
| Queen |
1997/99* |
745 kmL |
71 |
1,987 km2 |
|
|
|
| Elizabeth North |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Queen |
1997/99* |
<157 km2 |
6 |
1,978 km2 |
116 |
155 |
160-210 |
| Elizabeth South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (Kyambura) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishasha sector |
1999* |
-128 kmL |
29 |
1,987 km2 |
|
|
|
| Queen |
2000/02* |
1,987 kmL? |
49 |
1,987 km2 |
|
|
|
| Elizabeth North |
|
|
|
|
80 |
105 |
105? |
| Queen |
2000/02* |
<157 km2? |
9 |
1,987 km2 |
|
|
|
| Elizabeth South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (Kyambura) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishasha sector |
2000/02* |
<128 kmL |
23 |
1,987 km2 |
|
|
|
| Queen |
1978** |
125 kmL |
36 |
1,987 km2 |
36 |
? |
|
| Elizabeth North |
|
|
|
|
|
|
300-500? |
| Ishasha sector |
1977*** |
-80 kmL |
34 |
1,987 km2 |
34 |
|
|
| Ishasha sector |
1978*** |
-80 km2 |
30 |
1,987 km2 |
30 |
? |
|
| Ishasha sector |
1979*** |
-80 km2 |
39 |
1,987 km2 |
39 |
|
|
| Kidepo valley |
2000/02* |
<100 km2 |
24 |
1442 km2 |
24 |
35 |
58? |
| Toro Semuliki |
2000/02a |
- |
- |
518 km2 |
- |
- |
10 |
Sources of Information
- * Lion project
- ** Din (1978)
- ** van Orsdol (1981)
- a Uganda Wildlife Authority
- ? Very crude projection derived from census figures from the respective authors
Figure 2: Projected population of lions in Murchison Falls national park if hit with canine distemper
epidemic under different cub sex ratios at maximum population estimate
500 |
450 |
400 |
| 350 |
| 300 |
| 250 |
200 |
150 |
0 |
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
--0---
(1 Female: 1 Male) --o---(1female: 2 males) -) --*--(-C (1 Female: 9 males) I
Fig. 2 indicates that if Canine Distemper hit the population and killed 30% of the lions, the population would immediately experience a dramatic decline to 300 (35.8%) in the first 4 years, and more gradually after that. However, at the 1: 1 sex ratio, the decline would be less dramatic compared to a ratio of 2: 1. The decline at the abnormal sex ratio of 9:1 would be so dramatic that, by the 10th year, only about 50 individuals will be remaining, and this will nearly crush by the end of the 20th year (98.2%), assuming reproduction stagnates due to other factors.
Figure 3:
Projected population of lions at different levels of community kills under the current cub sex ratio at maximum population estimate
500 |
450 |
400 |
| 350 |
| 300 |
| 250 |
200 |
150 |
0 |
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
--#-- 4.7% community kill -o- 10% community kill
Fig. 3 if the community kills are kept as low as 4.7% as one of the observed rates, there will be an initial decline in the population size in the first 4 years from 453 to 360. Thereafter, when the young start reproducing, the population will increase steadily to about 475 individuals by the 20th year (4.9%). Meanwhile, if the community kill rate increases to 10%, the initial decline goes at the same rate, but thereafter, instead of the population increasing as was observed with the rate of 4.7%, it will continue to decline gently to 274 individuals by the 20th year (39.5%).
Discussions
Over all, the populations of lions in Uganda of 214 known lions, and even the crude projection of 354-745 for the whole country are low. Prey availability playa big role in predator population sizes as increased food availability leads to increased cub survival (Bothma, 1997), affects foraging behaviour, population density and composition, social dynamics, reproduction, spatial and social organization (Mills and Hofer, 1998). Since Uganda has experienced drastic declines in prey populations during the wars due to poaching, the lion population could not have been an exception, but because the lions are looked at as enemies to man and his livestock because of livestock raiding and man eating habits, they have an added disadvantage and recovery of their population requires a lot more conservation effort. Stochastic processes have a particular impact on small populations (Lacy, 1993 and Gotelli, 1995), because small isolated populations are vulnerable to additional forces, intrinsic to the dynamics of small populations, which may drive the population to extinction (Clark and Seebeck 1990; Shaffer, 1981 and Soule 1987). Although the factors causing a male biased sex ratio in the young age group in the Murchison population have not been identified, it is possible that sex biased mortality and other demographic stochastic processes could be playing a role.
Killing of lions by the local community for biomedical and cultural values is widely spread in Uganda, and elsewhere in Africa and some of the indiscriminate poisoning is in an attempt by the local community to avert the livestock losses caused by the lions (Nowel and Jackson, 1996 and Olivier, 1990; Mills et aI., 1978; and Frank, 1998; Stander, 1990). Road kills of lions by speeding vehicles have also claimed lions in Queen Elizabeth national park.
Queen Elizabeth national park, in 1994 experienced lion die offs and sero-surveillance in 1998/99 revealed evidence of canine distemper in the population (Driciru, et al., 2004), but such evidence was not found in the Murchison Falls national park population in 2000/2002. Canine distemper is a newly emerging disease in wild felids, and it has decimated populations of lions in other parts of the world, (Kadoi et al., 1997; Hofmann, et aI., 1996 and Roelke-Parker et aI., 1997).
Conclusion
Uganda 
