|Scientific Name:||Gyps coprotheres|
|Species Authority:||(Forster, 1798)|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Vulnerable C1+2a(ii) ver 3.1|
|Contributor(s):||Borello, W., Bowden, C., Diekmann, M., Simmons, R. & Wolter, K.|
|Facilitator/Compiler(s):||Ekstrom, J., Evans, M., Martin, R, Pilgrim, J., Shutes, S., Taylor, J., Temple, H. & Symes, A.|
This species is listed as Vulnerable since it has a small population which is likely to continue declining unless ongoing conservation efforts, including public awareness programmes and supplementary feeding, as well as efforts to reduce the threat from powerlines, are successful (Collar and Stuart 1985).
|Range Description:||Gyps coprotheres is found in South Africa (where overall numbers are decreasing [Vernon 1999, Barnes 2000, Benson 2000] with a minimum of 630 pairs at 143 colonies and 2000 individuals in the Eastern Cape and 39% of colonies recorded between 1987-1992 now inactive [Boshoff et al. 2009]), Lesotho (c.552 pairs at c.47 colonies, with a continuing decline at some colonies [Donnay 1990]), eastern and south-eastern Botswana (c.600 pairs [Borello and Borello 2002, Borello in litt. 2003]) and Mozambique (10-15 pairs near Swaziland [Parker 1999]). It formerly bred in Swaziland (declined to extinction [Parker 1994]), central Zimbabwe (declined to extinction - an isolated roost of up to 150 non-breeding birds persists [Mundy et al. 1997]), and Namibia (over 2,000 in the 1950s, but now considered extinct as a breeding species [Wolter 2011]). By 2000 there were only 6-12 birds in Namibia (Simmons et al. 1998a, R. Simmons in litt. 1999, 2000, Diekmann and Strachan 2006), with 16 birds released in October 2005 (Diekmann and Strachan 2006). Birds fitted with satellite transmitters in Namibia have been recorded making flights of up to 400 km into Angola (M. Diekmann in litt. 2006). The total population was estimated to be 4,400 pairs in 84 colonies in 1994 (Piper 1994), and was implied to have declined to c.4,000 pairs by 1999 (Barnes 2000). 18 'core' colonies now hold 80% of the G. coprotheres population (Boshoff and Anderson 2007). In 2006, the total population was estimated at 8,000-10,000 individuals (M. Diekmann in litt. 2006). The population is estimated to have declined by 10% between 1994 and 1999 (Barnes 2000), and over the period 1992-2007, the species declined by 60-70% in eastern South Africa (McKean and Botha 2007).|
Native:Angola (Angola); Botswana; Lesotho; Mozambique; South Africa; Zimbabwe
Regionally extinct:Namibia; Swaziland
Vagrant:Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Zambia
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||In 2006, the total population was estimated at 8,000-10,000 individuals (M. Diekmann in litt. 2006), roughly equivalent to 5,300-6,700 mature individuals.|
|Habitat and Ecology:||It is a long-lived (Oatley et al. 1998) carrion-feeder specialising on large carcasses, it flies long distances over open country, although usually found near mountains, where it breeds and roosts on cliffs (Mundy et al. 1992).|
The species is assumed to be declining throughout much of its range in the face of a multitude of threats (Boshoff and Anderson 2007). Sixteen known or suspected mortality factors were identified and ranked at an expert workshop with a decrease in the amount of carrion (particularly during chick-rearing), inadvertent poisoning, electrocution on pylons or collision with cables, loss of foraging habitat and unsustainable harvesting for traditional uses considered the most important factors (Mundy et al. 1992, Barnes 2000, Benson 2000, Borello and Borello 2002, Boshoff and Anderson 2007). Further threats include disturbance at colonies, bush encroachment and drowning (Anderson 1999, Borello and Borello 2002, Bamford et al. 2007). In southern Africa, vultures are caught and consumed for perceived medicinal and psychological benefits (McKean and Botha 2007, Anon. 2008). It is estimated that 160 vultures are sold and that there are 59,000 vulture-part consumption events in eastern South Africa each year, involving an estimated 1,250 hunters, traders and healers. At current harvest levels, the populations of this species in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Lesotho could become locally extinct within 44-53 years. Should the populations of White-backed Vultures G. africanus become depleted first, the resultant increase in hunting pressure on G. coprotheres could cause a population collapse within the subsequent 12 years (McKean and Botha 2007, Anon. 2008). Extrapolation from a limited study of traditional healers in Maseru, Lesotho, suggests that, conservatively, nearly 7% of the breeding population in that country would be lost annually for such use (Beilis and Esterhuizen 2005).
The species suffers mortality from the ingestion of poison left for pests (not vultures) (Diekmann and Strachan 2006) and potentially Diclofenac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug often used for livestock, and which is fatal to Gyps spp. when ingested at livestock carcasses (Komen 2006, BirdLife International news www.birdlife.org/news 2007). In 2007, Diclofenac, was found to be on sale at a veterinary practice in Tanzania (BirdLife International news www.birdlife.org/news 2007). In addition, it was reported that in Tanzania, a Brazilian manufacturer has been aggressively marketing the drug for veterinary purposes (C. Bowden in litt. 2007) and exporting it to 15 African countries (BirdLife International news www.birdlife.org/news 2007). A single poisoning incident can kill 50-500 birds, making the species susceptible to sudden local declines (M. Diekmann in litt. 2006). The collapse of a key colony in eastern Botswana has been attributed to human disturbance, especially insensitive tourism (Borello and Borello 2002). The ongoing urbanisation around Hartbeespoort Dam and the Magaliesberg Mountains, South Africa, has limited the extent of natural areas for foraging by vultures, perhaps resulting in their reliance on supplementary food at vulture "restaurants" (Wolter et al. unpubl.). If such restaurants were closed, vultures might be exposed to unsafe carcasses (Wolter et al. unpubl.).
Poor grassland management in some areas has promoted bush encroachment, making finding carcasses more difficult for vultures (Schultz 2007). There are records of at least 120 individuals (21 incidents) of this species drowning in small farm reservoirs in southern Africa between the early 1970s and late 1990s (Anderson et al. 1999), although modifications to many reservoirs have now been made (Boshoff et al. 2009). Raptors are thought to drown after attempting to bathe or drink, with mass vulture drownings probably due to the triggering of group behaviour by the actions of one bird (Anderson et al. 1999). In Magaliesberg a large number of fatalities have been associated with powerline collisions and electrocutions, and this is one of the main factors causing the ongoing decline of the species in South Africa (K. Wolter in litt. 2007). It is reported that a lack of adult females in the relict Namibian population may have led to four males breeding with G. africanus, although this is not thought to be a problem across southern Africa (Diekmann and Strachan 2006). Patterns in the contraction of the species's range since the 1950s imply that climate change could be an underlying factor driving its decline through changes in habitats and decreases in prey populations, though further research is required to confirm a link (Simmons and Jenkins 2007).
Conservation Actions Underway
CITES Appendix II. CMS Appendix II. It is legally protected throughout its range. Some breeding colonies lie within protected areas (Barnes 2000). Non-governmental organisations have successfully raised awareness among farming communities in South Africa of the plight of this species (Barnes 2000). Many nestlings of this species were colour-ringed in southern Africa in the 1970s and 1980s (Botha 2006). The national electricity supplier in South Africa has replaced pylons in some regions with a design that reduces electrocution risk to large birds (Barnes 2000), and breeding numbers have increased in one area (Wolter et al. 2007). Supplementary feeding at vulture restaurants may have helped to slow declines in some areas (Barnes 2000). The establishment of a restaurant at Nooitgedacht, South Africa, is thought to have helped promote the recolonisation of the former colony there, and another restaurant has possibly contributed the species's recovery in Magaliesberg (Wolter et al. unpubl.), although the extent of the species's dependence on such artificial food sources is yet to be studied in depth (W. D. Borello in litt. 2007, Wolter et al. unpubl.). Supplementary feeding is known to significantly increase the survival rate of first-year birds in the Western Cape Province of South Africa (Piper et al. 1999). 37 individuals were in captivity in Namibia in 2011, with 7 breeding pairs from which at least 2 chicks have been hatched (Anon. 2011). In October 2005, 16 birds from South Africa were released in Namibia and, although at least two have perished (Diekmann and Strachan 2006) and one was taken into care with a companion (Komen 2006), data on flight patterns and breeding behaviour have been recorded from two birds that were fitted with satellite transmitters (Anon. 2006). By 2006, five birds had been fitted with satellite tracking collars (Diekmann and Strachan 2006, Bamford et al. 2007). In Namibia, both communal and commercial farmers have been educated about the benefits that vultures bring and thus the disadvantages of poisoning carcasses, whilst there is also an education centre and education programme for schools (Diekmann and Strachan 2006). A conservation workshop for the species was held in March 2006 and was attended by 19 individuals (Komen 2006). The group reassessed the status of the species and the threats it faces, and decided on conservation actions. A task force was established and people were identified to manage conservation actions for each of the key colonies in southern Africa. In the East Cape awareness programmes have led to modifications in cement reservoirs to prevent drownings as well as aiming to reduce indirect poisoning. A press release was circulated in March 2006 raising awareness of the dangers of using diclofenac in the treatment of cattle. In 2006, the re-establishment of monitoring was expected at the species's only colony in Zimbabwe (Komen 2006). A press release was circulated in July 2007 to raise awareness of the impacts of hunting for medicinal and cultural reasons in southern Africa (McKean and Botha 2007). The threat posed by anti-inflammatory drugs in southern Africa is under investigation (K. Wolter in litt. 2007). An expert workshop on the species's conservation was held in South Africa in March 2006 (Boshoff and Anderson 2006). Conservation Actions Proposed
Develop conservation plans for each of the 18 'core' colonies through the Cape Griffon Task Force (Boshoff and Anderson 2007, Jenkins 2010). Protect breeding colonies (Barnes 2000), and prevent uninhibited access by tourists to nesting sites (Borello and Borello 2002, Hancock 2008). Develop captive-breeding projects and mitigate impacts from poisoning and electrocution (Barnes 2000). Increase availability of livestock carcasses to G. coprotheres in areas where current practices do not allow this. Develop conservation partnerships with the farming community (Barnes 2000). Investigate the burgeoning exploitation for traditional medicine (Barnes 2000). Reduce hunting for medicinal and cultural reasons (McKean and Botha 2007). Monitor food availability, especially through the nestling period. Carry out a complete survey of its breeding sites (Barnes 2000). Continue population monitoring and demographic studies (Barnes 2000). Conduct research to assess the potential impact of climate change compared with other threats (Simmons and Jenkins 2007). Raise awareness amongst pastoralists of the dangers of using Diclofenac for livestock (BirdLife International news www.birdlife.org/news 2007). Lobby governments to outlaw the sale of Diclofenac for veterinary purposes (BirdLife International news www.birdlife.org/news 2007).
|Citation:||BirdLife International 2014. Gyps coprotheres. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 17 September 2014.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided|