Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area: Difference between revisions
Created page with "West Africa > Liberia > Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area '''[https://apesatlas-iucnapesportal-org.translate.goog/index.php/Kpo_Mountains_Proposed_Protected_Area?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=fr&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Français]''' | '''[https://apesatlas-iucnapesportal-org.translate.goog/index.php/Kpo_Mountains_Proposed_Protected_Area?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=pt&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Português]''' | '''[https://apesatlas-iucnapesportal-org.translate.go..." |
No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* Key threats to chimpanzees are hunting, large-scale mining and commercial logging. | * Key threats to chimpanzees are hunting, large-scale mining and commercial logging. | ||
* Kpo Mountains forms part of a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) spanning Kpelle Forest and Lorma National Forest. | * Kpo Mountains forms part of a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) spanning Kpelle Forest and Lorma National Forest. | ||
= Site characteristics = | = Site characteristics = | ||
Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area encompasses the Kpo Mountain range, Bulubala Mountain, an important section of the Ba Creek watershed, and surrounding closed dense forest lowlands which connect these otherwise steep and relatively narrow mountain ranges. It is one of Liberia’s remaining forests with rich biodiversity. Though not close to the Gola Forest National Park and the Foya Proposed Protected Area, it serves as host for wildlife transiting from these areas (FDA 2017). A site of intermediate importance for the vulnerable zebra duiker (''Cephalophus zebra'') and pygmy hippopotamus (''Hexaprotodon liberiensis''), and the endangered Diana monkey (''Cercopithecus diana'', Johnson 2015). Apart from chimpanzees (''Pan troglodytes verus''), survey teams of the nationwide chimpanzee and large mammal survey (Tweh et al. 2014) found numerous signs of Maxwell duiker (''Philantomba maxwellii''), Bay duiker (''Cephalophus dorsalis''), bushbuck (''Tragelaphus scriptus''), sooty mangabey (''Cercocebus atys''), lowland Bongo (''Tragelaphus eurycerus eurycerus''), red river hog (''Potamochoerus porcus''), and the forest buffalo (''Syncerus caffer nanus'') in vicinity of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area (Junker unpubl. data). | Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area encompasses the Kpo Mountain range, Bulubala Mountain, an important section of the Ba Creek watershed, and surrounding closed dense forest lowlands which connect these otherwise steep and relatively narrow mountain ranges. It is one of Liberia’s remaining forests with rich biodiversity. Though not close to the Gola Forest National Park and the Foya Proposed Protected Area, it serves as host for wildlife transiting from these areas ([[#R00941|FDA 2017]]). A site of intermediate importance for the vulnerable zebra duiker (''Cephalophus zebra'') and pygmy hippopotamus (''Hexaprotodon liberiensis''), and the endangered Diana monkey (''Cercopithecus diana'', [[#R00943|Johnson 2015]]). Apart from chimpanzees (''Pan troglodytes verus''), survey teams of the nationwide chimpanzee and large mammal survey ([[#R00945|Tweh et al. 2014]]) found numerous signs of Maxwell duiker (''Philantomba maxwellii''), Bay duiker (''Cephalophus dorsalis''), bushbuck (''Tragelaphus scriptus''), sooty mangabey (''Cercocebus atys''), lowland Bongo (''Tragelaphus eurycerus eurycerus''), red river hog (''Potamochoerus porcus''), and the forest buffalo (''Syncerus caffer nanus'') in vicinity of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area (Junker unpubl. data). | ||
'''Table 1. Basic site information for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area''' | '''Table 1. Basic site information for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area''' | ||
| Line 44: | Line 41: | ||
[[Types of sites]] [[Governance types]] [[Habitat types]] | [[Types of sites]] [[Governance types]] [[Habitat types]] | ||
= Ape status = | = Ape status = | ||
In 2017, the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) published a request for expressions of interest for provision of consultancy services to carry out a biological baseline survey of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area and carry out a socio-economic study of the local communities (FDA 2017). However, no information about surveys in this area could be found. Although Tweh and colleagues (2014) did not survey Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area directly, they found a few nests and feeding signs of chimpanzees on recces and line transects in the forests north-west and south-west of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area (Kpelle Forest), as well as to the far east of this area (Lorma National Forest) (Junker unpubl. data). The nationwide chimpanzee abundance model published by Junker et al. (2015) suggests that chimpanzees are likely to occur in this area. Further analysis of the nationwide dataset revealed that Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area was located in the fifth highest ranked conservation priority area in terms of chimpanzee density, and mammal and tree diversity (Junker et al. 2015). Interview surveys showed that several villages to the west of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area in Kpelle Forest practice taboos against the killing and eating of chimpanzees (Junker unpubl. data). | In 2017, the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) published a request for expressions of interest for provision of consultancy services to carry out a biological baseline survey of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area and carry out a socio-economic study of the local communities ([[#R00941|FDA 2017]]). However, no information about surveys in this area could be found. Although [[#R00945|Tweh and colleagues (2014)]] did not survey Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area directly, they found a few nests and feeding signs of chimpanzees on recces and line transects in the forests north-west and south-west of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area (Kpelle Forest), as well as to the far east of this area (Lorma National Forest) (Junker unpubl. data). The nationwide chimpanzee abundance model published by [[#R00944|Junker et al. (2015)]] suggests that chimpanzees are likely to occur in this area. Further analysis of the nationwide dataset revealed that Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area was located in the fifth highest ranked conservation priority area in terms of chimpanzee density, and mammal and tree diversity ([[#R00944|Junker et al. 2015]]). Interview surveys showed that several villages to the west of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area in Kpelle Forest practice taboos against the killing and eating of chimpanzees (Junker unpubl. data). | ||
'''Table 2. Ape population estimates reported for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area''' | '''Table 2. Ape population estimates reported for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area''' | ||
| Line 72: | Line 70: | ||
|Other | |Other | ||
| | | | ||
|Junker et al. 2015 | |[[#R00944|Junker et al. 2015]] | ||
|The site itself was not surveyed, estimate based on a nationwide chimpanzee abundance model | |The site itself was not surveyed, estimate based on a nationwide chimpanzee abundance model | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 78: | Line 76: | ||
[[Sampling methods]] [[Analytical frameworks]] | [[Sampling methods]] [[Analytical frameworks]] | ||
= Threats = | = Threats = | ||
During the nationwide chimpanzee and large mammal survey, teams encountered moderate amounts of hunting signs in the forests around Kpo Proposed Protected Area (Junker unpubl. data). However, no line transects or recces were surveyed directly inside Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area. A considerable part of the proposed protected area is covered by Mineral Exploration Licenses (MEL) for gold and other base metals and iron ore owned by BCM International Liberia Ltd., SALMEC Resources Ltd., and Mining and Exploration Services Liberia Ltd. (Johnson 2015). MEL’s entail that after a proposed exploration program has been handed to the Minister of Land, Mines, and Energy, the company commences exploration (Wilson et al. 2017). Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area overlapped with illegally issued Private-Use Permit (PUP) for commercial logging. Private Use Permits were a type of logging licence designed to allow private land owners to cut trees on their property, but which were reportedly subject to misuse by commercial logging companies. After investigations by Global Witness (Global Witness 2013) much public outcry and extensive media coverage, PUPs have now largely been rescinded (Johnson 2015). | During the nationwide chimpanzee and large mammal survey, teams encountered moderate amounts of hunting signs in the forests around Kpo Proposed Protected Area (Junker unpubl. data). However, no line transects or recces were surveyed directly inside Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area. A considerable part of the proposed protected area is covered by Mineral Exploration Licenses (MEL) for gold and other base metals and iron ore owned by BCM International Liberia Ltd., SALMEC Resources Ltd., and Mining and Exploration Services Liberia Ltd. ([[#R00943|Johnson 2015]]). MEL’s entail that after a proposed exploration program has been handed to the Minister of Land, Mines, and Energy, the company commences exploration ([[#R00946|Wilson et al. 2017]]). Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area overlapped with illegally issued Private-Use Permit (PUP) for commercial logging. Private Use Permits were a type of logging licence designed to allow private land owners to cut trees on their property, but which were reportedly subject to misuse by commercial logging companies. After investigations by Global Witness ([[#R00942|Global Witness 2013]]) much public outcry and extensive media coverage, PUPs have now largely been rescinded ([[#R00943|Johnson 2015]]). | ||
'''Table 3. Threats to apes reported for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area''' | '''Table 3. Threats to apes reported for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area''' | ||
| Line 89: | Line 88: | ||
!Description | !Description | ||
!Year of threat | !Year of threat | ||
|- | |||
|3 Energy production & mining | |||
|3.2 Mining & quarrying | |||
|Medium (30-70% of population affected) | |||
|Mining for gold and other minerals ([[#R00943|Johnson 2015]]) | |||
|Ongoing (2015) | |||
|- | |- | ||
|5 Biological resource use | |5 Biological resource use | ||
| Line 95: | Line 100: | ||
|Area overlapped with PUPs, which have been withdrawn | |Area overlapped with PUPs, which have been withdrawn | ||
|2013-2015 | |2013-2015 | ||
|} | |} | ||
[[Threats]] | [[Threats]] | ||
= Conservation activities = | = Conservation activities = | ||
No conservation activities have been reported for the site. | No conservation activities have been reported for the site. | ||
= Challenges = | = Challenges = | ||
| Line 126: | Line 127: | ||
[[Challenges]] | [[Challenges]] | ||
= Enablers = | = Enablers = | ||
| Line 169: | Line 171: | ||
[[Enablers]] | [[Enablers]] | ||
= Research activities = | = Research activities = | ||
| Line 201: | Line 205: | ||
[[Behaviours]] | [[Behaviours]] | ||
= Exposure to climate change impacts = | = Exposure to climate change impacts = | ||
As part of a study on the exposure of African great ape sites to climate change impacts, Kiribou et al. | As part of a study on the exposure of African great ape sites to climate change impacts, [[#R02233|Kiribou et al. (2024)]] extracted climate data and data on projected extreme climate impact events for the site. Climatological characteristics were derived from observation-based climate data provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP, www.isimip.org). Parameters were calculated as the average across each 30-year period. For 1981-2010, the EWEMBI dataset from ISIMIP2a was used. For the two future periods (2021-2050 and 2071-2099) ISIMIP2b climate data based on four CMIP5 global climate models were used. For future projections, two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) were used. RCP 2.6 is a scenario with strong mitigation measures in which global temperatures would likely rise below 2C. RCP 6.0 is a scenario with medium emissions in which global temperatures would likely rise up to 3C by 2100. For the number of days with heavy precipitation events, the 98th percentile of all precipitation days (>1mm/d) was calculated for the 1979-2013 reference period as a threshold for a heavy precipitation event. Then, for each year, the number of days above that threshold was derived. The figures on temperature and precipitation anomaly show the deviation from the mean temperature and mean precipitation for the 1979-2013 reference period. | ||
The estimated exposure to future extreme climate impact events (crop failure, drought, river flood, wildfire, tropical cyclone, and heatwave) is based on a published dataset by Lange et al. 2020 derived from ISIMIP2b data. The same global climate models and RCPs as described above were used. Within each 30-year period, the number of years with an extreme event and the average proportion of the site affected were calculated ( | The estimated exposure to future extreme climate impact events (crop failure, drought, river flood, wildfire, tropical cyclone, and heatwave) is based on a published dataset by Lange et al. 2020 derived from ISIMIP2b data. The same global climate models and RCPs as described above were used. Within each 30-year period, the number of years with an extreme event and the average proportion of the site affected were calculated ([[#R02233|Kiribou et al. 2024]]). | ||
'''Table 8. Estimated past and projected climatological characteristics in Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area''' | '''Table 8. Estimated past and projected climatological characteristics in Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area''' | ||
| Line 312: | Line 317: | ||
|0.6 | |0.6 | ||
|30 | |30 | ||
|0. | |0.56 | ||
|29 | |29 | ||
|0.62 | |0.62 | ||
|29 | |29 | ||
|0. | |0.58 | ||
|} | |} | ||
<div><ul><li style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: top;"> [[File:PrecipAnomaly_Kpo_Mountains.png| 450px | thumb| none | Precipitation anomaly in Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area]] </li><li style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: top;"> [[File:TempAnomaly_Kpo_Mountains.png | 450px | thumb| none | Temperature anomaly in Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area]] </li></ul></div> | |||
= External links = | = External links = | ||
| Line 326: | Line 333: | ||
= References = | = References = | ||
Forestry Development Authority (FDA) 2017. Request for Expressions of Interest for Provision of Consultancy Services. Liberia Forest Sector Project, Project Id: P154114, Grant Id: Tfa2427. (15 October 2019; https://www.emansion.gov.lr/doc/Community_37.pdf). | <span id="R00941"></span>Forestry Development Authority (FDA) 2017. Request for Expressions of Interest for Provision of Consultancy Services. Liberia Forest Sector Project, Project Id: P154114, Grant Id: Tfa2427. (15 October 2019; https://www.emansion.gov.lr/doc/Community_37.pdf). | ||
<span id="R00942"></span>Global Witness. (2013). Avoiding the Riptide: Liberia must Enforce its Forest Laws to Prevent a New Wave of Illegal and Destructive Logging Contracts. Global Witness. | |||
<span id="R00943"></span>Johnson S. 2015. Aggregated Biodiversity Offsets: A Roadmap for Liberia’s Mining Sector. Unpublished report by the World Bank Group (WBG) and Program On Forests (PROFOR). | |||
<span id="R00944"></span>Junker, J., Boesch, C., Freeman, T., Mundry, R., Stephens, C., & Kühl, H. S. (2015). Integrating wildlife conservation with conflicting economic land-use goals in a West African biodiversity hotspot. ''Basic and Applied Ecology'', 16(8), 690-702. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.07.002 doi:10.1016/j.baae.2015.07.002] | |||
<span id="R00945"></span>Tweh, C. G., Lormie, M. M., Kouakou, C. Y., Hillers, A., Kühl, H. S., & Junker, J. (2015). Conservation status of chimpanzees Pan troglodytes verus and other large mammals in Liberia: a nationwide survey. ''Oryx'', 49(4), 710-718. [https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605313001191 doi:10.1017/s0030605313001191] | |||
<span id="R00946"></span>Wilson, S. T. K., Wang, H., Kabenge, M., & Qi, X. (2017). The mining sector of Liberia: current practices and environmental challenges. ''Environmental Science and Pollution Research'', 24(23), 18711-18720. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9647-4 doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9647-4] | |||
<span id="R02233"></span>Kiribou, R., Tehoda, P., Chukwu, O., Bempah, G., Kühl, H. S., Ferreira, J., …, & Heinicke, S. (2024). Exposure of African ape sites to climate change impacts. ''PLOS Climate'', 3(2), e0000345. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000345 doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000345] | |||
'''Page created by: '''APES Atlas Team''' Date:''' 2019-10-23 | '''Page created by: '''APES Atlas Team''' Date:''' 2019-10-23 | ||
Latest revision as of 17:53, 15 October 2026
West Africa > Liberia > Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
Français | Português | Español | Bahasa Indonesia | Melayu
Summary
- Western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) are likely to be present in the Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area.
- The population size is unknown.
- The chimpanzee population trend is unknown.
- This site has a total size of 837 km².
- Key threats to chimpanzees are hunting, large-scale mining and commercial logging.
- Kpo Mountains forms part of a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) spanning Kpelle Forest and Lorma National Forest.
Site characteristics
Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area encompasses the Kpo Mountain range, Bulubala Mountain, an important section of the Ba Creek watershed, and surrounding closed dense forest lowlands which connect these otherwise steep and relatively narrow mountain ranges. It is one of Liberia’s remaining forests with rich biodiversity. Though not close to the Gola Forest National Park and the Foya Proposed Protected Area, it serves as host for wildlife transiting from these areas (FDA 2017). A site of intermediate importance for the vulnerable zebra duiker (Cephalophus zebra) and pygmy hippopotamus (Hexaprotodon liberiensis), and the endangered Diana monkey (Cercopithecus diana, Johnson 2015). Apart from chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus), survey teams of the nationwide chimpanzee and large mammal survey (Tweh et al. 2014) found numerous signs of Maxwell duiker (Philantomba maxwellii), Bay duiker (Cephalophus dorsalis), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys), lowland Bongo (Tragelaphus eurycerus eurycerus), red river hog (Potamochoerus porcus), and the forest buffalo (Syncerus caffer nanus) in vicinity of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area (Junker unpubl. data).
Table 1. Basic site information for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
| Species | Pan troglodytes verus |
| Area | 837 km² |
| Coordinates | Lat: 7.41 , Lon: -10.06 |
| Type of site | Proposed protected area |
| Habitat types | Subtropical/tropical moist lowland forest |
| Type of governance |
Types of sites Governance types Habitat types
Ape status
In 2017, the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) published a request for expressions of interest for provision of consultancy services to carry out a biological baseline survey of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area and carry out a socio-economic study of the local communities (FDA 2017). However, no information about surveys in this area could be found. Although Tweh and colleagues (2014) did not survey Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area directly, they found a few nests and feeding signs of chimpanzees on recces and line transects in the forests north-west and south-west of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area (Kpelle Forest), as well as to the far east of this area (Lorma National Forest) (Junker unpubl. data). The nationwide chimpanzee abundance model published by Junker et al. (2015) suggests that chimpanzees are likely to occur in this area. Further analysis of the nationwide dataset revealed that Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area was located in the fifth highest ranked conservation priority area in terms of chimpanzee density, and mammal and tree diversity (Junker et al. 2015). Interview surveys showed that several villages to the west of Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area in Kpelle Forest practice taboos against the killing and eating of chimpanzees (Junker unpubl. data).
Table 2. Ape population estimates reported for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
| Species | Year | Occurrence | Encounter or vistation rate (nests/km; ind/day) | Density estimate [ind./ km²] (95% CI) | Abundance estimate (95% CI) | Survey area | Sampling method | Analytical framework | Source | Comments | A.P.E.S. database ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pan troglodytes verus | 2010-2012 | Present | Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area | Other | Junker et al. 2015 | The site itself was not surveyed, estimate based on a nationwide chimpanzee abundance model |
Sampling methods Analytical frameworks
Threats
During the nationwide chimpanzee and large mammal survey, teams encountered moderate amounts of hunting signs in the forests around Kpo Proposed Protected Area (Junker unpubl. data). However, no line transects or recces were surveyed directly inside Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area. A considerable part of the proposed protected area is covered by Mineral Exploration Licenses (MEL) for gold and other base metals and iron ore owned by BCM International Liberia Ltd., SALMEC Resources Ltd., and Mining and Exploration Services Liberia Ltd. (Johnson 2015). MEL’s entail that after a proposed exploration program has been handed to the Minister of Land, Mines, and Energy, the company commences exploration (Wilson et al. 2017). Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area overlapped with illegally issued Private-Use Permit (PUP) for commercial logging. Private Use Permits were a type of logging licence designed to allow private land owners to cut trees on their property, but which were reportedly subject to misuse by commercial logging companies. After investigations by Global Witness (Global Witness 2013) much public outcry and extensive media coverage, PUPs have now largely been rescinded (Johnson 2015).
Table 3. Threats to apes reported for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
| Category | Specific threats | Threat level | Description | Year of threat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Energy production & mining | 3.2 Mining & quarrying | Medium (30-70% of population affected) | Mining for gold and other minerals (Johnson 2015) | Ongoing (2015) |
| 5 Biological resource use | 5.3 Logging & wood harvesting | Low (up to 30% of population affected) | Area overlapped with PUPs, which have been withdrawn | 2013-2015 |
Conservation activities
No conservation activities have been reported for the site.
Challenges
Table 5. Challenges reported for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
| Challenges | Specific challenges | Source | Year(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not reported |
Enablers
Table 6. Enablers reported for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
| Enablers | Specific enablers | Source | Year(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Site management | |||
| 2 Resources and capacity | |||
| 3 Engaged community | |||
| 4 Institutional support | |||
| 5 Ecological context | |||
| 6 Safety and stability |
Research activities
Documented behaviours
Table 7. Behaviours documented for Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
| Category | Behavior | Observation type | Prevalence | Observation dates | Source | Habituation | Species | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not reported |
Exposure to climate change impacts
As part of a study on the exposure of African great ape sites to climate change impacts, Kiribou et al. (2024) extracted climate data and data on projected extreme climate impact events for the site. Climatological characteristics were derived from observation-based climate data provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP, www.isimip.org). Parameters were calculated as the average across each 30-year period. For 1981-2010, the EWEMBI dataset from ISIMIP2a was used. For the two future periods (2021-2050 and 2071-2099) ISIMIP2b climate data based on four CMIP5 global climate models were used. For future projections, two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) were used. RCP 2.6 is a scenario with strong mitigation measures in which global temperatures would likely rise below 2C. RCP 6.0 is a scenario with medium emissions in which global temperatures would likely rise up to 3C by 2100. For the number of days with heavy precipitation events, the 98th percentile of all precipitation days (>1mm/d) was calculated for the 1979-2013 reference period as a threshold for a heavy precipitation event. Then, for each year, the number of days above that threshold was derived. The figures on temperature and precipitation anomaly show the deviation from the mean temperature and mean precipitation for the 1979-2013 reference period.
The estimated exposure to future extreme climate impact events (crop failure, drought, river flood, wildfire, tropical cyclone, and heatwave) is based on a published dataset by Lange et al. 2020 derived from ISIMIP2b data. The same global climate models and RCPs as described above were used. Within each 30-year period, the number of years with an extreme event and the average proportion of the site affected were calculated (Kiribou et al. 2024).
Table 8. Estimated past and projected climatological characteristics in Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
| Value | 1981-2010 | 2021-2050, RCP 2.6 | 2021-2050, RCP 6.0 | 2071-2099, RCP 2.6 | 2071-2099, RCP 6.0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean temperature [C] | 24.9 | 26 | 26 | 26.1 | 27.1 |
| Annual precipitation [mm] | 2515 | 2563 | 2616 | 2588 | 2717 |
| Max no. consecutive dry days (per year) | 22 | 26.2 | 23.6 | 25.4 | 26.9 |
| No. days with heavy precipitation (per year) | 6.4 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 10.5 |
Table 9. Projected exposure of apes to extreme climate impact events in Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
| Type | No. of years with event (2021-2050, RCP 2.6) | % of site exposed (2021-2050, RCP 2.6) | No. of years with event (2021-2050, RCP 6.0) | % of site exposed (2021-2050, RCP 6.0) | No. of years with event (2070-2099, RCP 2.6) | % of site exposed (2070-2099, RCP 2.6) | No. of years with event (2070-2099, RCP 6.0) | % of site exposed (2070-2099, RCP 6.0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crop failure | 4.5 | 0.06 | 3.5 | 0.06 | 2.5 | 0.06 | 6.5 | 0.06 |
| Drought | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Heatwave | 9.5 | 100 | 4.5 | 100 | 9.5 | 100 | 11.5 | 100 |
| River flood | 1 | 0.89 | 1 | 2.86 | 2.5 | 1.64 | 4.25 | 3.05 |
| Tropical cyclone | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.09 |
| Wildfire | 30 | 0.6 | 30 | 0.56 | 29 | 0.62 | 29 | 0.58 |
-
Precipitation anomaly in Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area -
Temperature anomaly in Kpo Mountains Proposed Protected Area
External links
References
Forestry Development Authority (FDA) 2017. Request for Expressions of Interest for Provision of Consultancy Services. Liberia Forest Sector Project, Project Id: P154114, Grant Id: Tfa2427. (15 October 2019; https://www.emansion.gov.lr/doc/Community_37.pdf).
Global Witness. (2013). Avoiding the Riptide: Liberia must Enforce its Forest Laws to Prevent a New Wave of Illegal and Destructive Logging Contracts. Global Witness.
Johnson S. 2015. Aggregated Biodiversity Offsets: A Roadmap for Liberia’s Mining Sector. Unpublished report by the World Bank Group (WBG) and Program On Forests (PROFOR).
Junker, J., Boesch, C., Freeman, T., Mundry, R., Stephens, C., & Kühl, H. S. (2015). Integrating wildlife conservation with conflicting economic land-use goals in a West African biodiversity hotspot. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(8), 690-702. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2015.07.002
Tweh, C. G., Lormie, M. M., Kouakou, C. Y., Hillers, A., Kühl, H. S., & Junker, J. (2015). Conservation status of chimpanzees Pan troglodytes verus and other large mammals in Liberia: a nationwide survey. Oryx, 49(4), 710-718. doi:10.1017/s0030605313001191
Wilson, S. T. K., Wang, H., Kabenge, M., & Qi, X. (2017). The mining sector of Liberia: current practices and environmental challenges. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(23), 18711-18720. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9647-4
Kiribou, R., Tehoda, P., Chukwu, O., Bempah, G., Kühl, H. S., Ferreira, J., …, & Heinicke, S. (2024). Exposure of African ape sites to climate change impacts. PLOS Climate, 3(2), e0000345. doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000345
Page created by: APES Atlas Team Date: 2019-10-23