A double-edged sword:

anthropogenic impacts on great apes, their habitats and conversation efforts.

Stephanie Edwards
0533467
ANTH-4114
















2
Introduction
Conservation has been a topic of focus for modern humans for much of the 21
st
century.
Great ape populations are one of the endangered species that are on the top of the list for most
wildlife conservationists. Anthropogenic impacts play a major part in the conservation of great
apes and for the reasons that conservation is needed in the first place. Since prehistory, human
populations have had a detrimental impact on the tropical rainforest habitats of many primates
and have caused great ape populations to be driven to the brink of extinction. Alternately,
anthropogenic influences also play both an important, yet sometimes damaging, role in the
conservation of primates. Throughout documented human history, direct and indirect
anthropogenic impacts have destroyed great ape habitats and have caused the need for
conservation efforts, in which modern humans play both an important and harmful role.
Prehistoric Impacts on Great Ape Habitats
Tropical rainforests have been the preferred habitat for the majority of great ape
populations, but rainforests are an interesting ecological environment to understand historically.
Shifting baselines are a particular problem for ecological studies in the tropics, due to the earliest
written descriptions often being greater than 200 years old (Corlett, 2013). More importantly for
scientific study, the first quantitative studies on tropical rainforests have usually taken place in
the last few decades, while significant human impacts may have started millennia before
(Corlett, 2013). One common theory in the study of prehistoric human impacts on environments
that is relevant to rainforest ecology is the extinction of the megafauna. The basis of this theory
is that the presence of an intelligent, social, weapon-bearing, bipedal ape changed an otherwise
unexceptional glacial termination into a lethal event for many large, slow-breeding vertebrates
(Corlett, 2013). Though many academics cite climatic change as the major driver in megafaunal
3
extinction, the multiple coincidences of megafaunal extinctions with the local arrival of modern
humans from 50,000 to 600 years ago make a strong case that these extinctions were caused by
humans (Corlett, 2013). The extinction of the megafauna not only had obvious consequences for
the species itself, but also for the ecology of the area that they inhabited. In Africa,
megaherbivores contributed 40-70% of the biomass in savannas, although they were only a small
proportion of the species (Corlett, 2013). Due to their large individual size and high total
biomass, the megaherbivores acted as a keystone species, helping to maintain a vegetational
mosaic (Corlett, 2013). The extinction of these keystone species affected the vegetation greatly,
causing the first significantly negative effect on great ape habitats. Most notably, plants with
expansive, but now obsolete, defenses against extinct megaherbivores would be expected to lose
out in competition with more palatable species (Corlett, 2013). These prehistoric human impacts
dating more than 40,000 years ago prove that tropical rainforests are among the most complex
and species-rich ecosystems in the world (Gemerden et al, 2003). It also suggests that the human
use of African rainforest areas during the last millennia may have been more widespread than
previously thought (Gemerden et al, 2003).
Another prominent problem with tropical rainforest ecology is the misunderstanding that
many great ape habitats are pristine environments that have experienced minimal human
alteration. Although structurally many central African rainforests appear pristine, studies have
shown that some forests overlie extensive evidence of prehistoric clearance (Brncic et al, 2007).
Archaeological studies have indicated that prehistoric humans using pottery, iron, agriculture and
animal husbandry have occupied African rainforests during the last 2000 to 4000 years (Brncic et
al, 2007). The area of the Congo River has produced evidence proving the habitation of humans
since prehistoric times. Multiple sites of pottery and iron artifacts have been discovered along the
4
Congo River dating from 2300 B.P. (Brncic et al, 2007). Brncic et al (2007) conducted a
paleoecological study that examined the vegetation history of currently undisturbed lowland
tropical forest in the Ndoki river area of the Congo basin. The aim of their study was to
determine the relative influence of culture and climate on past and present forest composition
(Brncic et al, 2007). Pollen, geochemical and microscopic charcoal analyses were done in order
to look for evidence of anthropogenic burning and metallurgical practices that may have
influenced past forest composition (Brncic et al, 2007). The results of their study provided
evidence that supported the hypothesis that anthropogenic impacts influenced current forest
ecology. From approximately 1200 B.P. to the present, microscopic charcoal records show a
major increase in burning and the pollen record shows long-term changes in the forest
composition (Brncic et al, 2007). This data suggests that prehistoric burning had a larger impact
on species composition in the past than climate changes in the Congo basin (Brncic et al, 2007).
Studies indicate that the forests have experienced dramatic change over the last four millennia,
sometimes with permanent forest loss (Brncic et al, 2007). Though anthropogenic impacts are
obvious, the data also indicated that the Congo basin has been very resistant to past disturbances,
as close examination of the regeneration requirements of mature trees in the area reveal that
many species are likely to have only regenerated following a large-scale disturbance (Brncic et
al, 2007). This study on the Congo River basin begins to show how complicated anthropogenic
impacts on great ape habitats have been, as it suggests both positive and negative consequences.
One of the most important species to get information on historical human impacts are the
trees themselves. Most rainforest tree species have considerable life spans and therefore current
tree species composition will reflect historical disturbances, and the likely date of the
disturbances may be inferred from the diameter distribution of the trees. (Gemerden et al, 2003).
5
In their study of the Central African rainforests, Gemerden et al (2003) found three lines of
evidence that suggest shifting cultivation is the most likely historical disturbance. The first line
of evidence is the size of disturbed and undisturbed patches, the second is the distribution of
charcoal and the third is historical accounts of human population densities (Gemerden et al,
2003). They studied soil samples as well and found that 29% of the soil profiles in the area
contained charcoal fragments, and high charcoal occurrence in the soil is generally associated
with human activities as natural forest fires are rare in the African rainforests (Gemerden et al,
2003). In southern and central Congo, there is good evidence that savanna vegetation replaced
rainforests during a dry climatic phase that began about 3000 years ago, and humans played a
key role in this transition through their use of fire (White and Oates, 1999). Once again,
anthropogenic impacts are clearly present in the habitats of great apes. Present-day tree species
composition echo historical large-scale disturbances and gaining more insights into historical use
will help to get a more balanced view of the pristine rainforest (Gemerden et al, 2003).
Although typically believed to be pristine, the current species composition of African
rainforests may still reflect large-scale historical disturbances, such as human impacts
(Gemerden et al, 2007). This misleading belief of the pristine also has detrimental effects on
conservation efforts. Most biodiversity conservation strategies are based on the assumption that
human have never disturbed rainforests (Gemerden et al, 2007). If human activities prove to have
affected the majority of the African rainforest system, the richest sites for biodiversity
conservation may prove to be those areas which have been least modified by humans (White and
Oates, 1999).


6
Modern Anthropogenic Impacts on Great Apes
Anthropogenic impacts on great apes and their habitats did not stop as the world entered
into modern times. The tropical forest landscape is changing rapidly as human populations and
economies grow, and modern anthropogenic impacts can be grouped into two broad categories:
local and global effects (Wright, 2005). Global effects include changes to the atmosphere and
climate caused by fossil-fuel consumption and remote land-cover change (Wright, 2005).
Though global effects are equally important, local effects are easier to collect evidence for and
therefore are discussed and studied more extensively. Local effects include local land-use cover
change, invasive species, and timber and bushmeat extraction (Wright, 2005). Two of the most
common and well-known local anthropogenic effects are deforestation and poaching.
Approximately half of the potential tropical closed-canopy forest has already been removed and
the land converted to other use (Wright, 2005). Transnational logging companies also directly
contribute to the extinction of great apes through overexploitation and the destruction of habitats
(Benz & Benz-Schwarzburg, 2010). As for poaching, hunters routinely extirpate the more
sensitive species, such as large primates, which are characterized by delayed maturation and few
young (Wright, 2005). The logging trade also influences poaching because logging trails increase
access to forest interiors, which facilitates the now rampant bushmeat trade in Central Africa
(Benz & Benz-Schwarzburg, 2010). Along with these two problems, human population densities,
logging and mining are now rapidly increasing and destroying ape habitats in their wake (Junker
et al, 2012).
Though deforestation and poaching are two common modern anthropogenic impacts
associated with the destruction of great ape habitats, the effects during and after the wars
occurring frequently in Africa provide many problems for great apes. The species most affected
7
by conflicts in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo is the gorilla, which accounted
for 10.2% of all 187 environmental impacts reported in a study done by Glew & Hudson (2007).
Since 1946, all great ape range states have experienced internal conflicts, which means that
within the last 60 years, great ape habitats have hardly seen any break from violent conflict
(Benz & Benz-Schwarzburg, 2010). One of the most conflict-ridden great ape habitats is the
Democratic Republic of Congo, where the Virunga National Park is located, housing over 300
habituated gorillas (Benz & Benz-Schwarzburg, 2010). The Virunga National Park is the most
biologically rich protected area in Africa and home to the worlds highest number of mammals
threatened with extinction, and because armed forces do not stop at the borders of national parks,
this severely impacts upon the situation of the great apes in the region (Benz & Benz-
Schwarzburg, 2010). During these conflicts, Virunga National Park repeatedly fell under the
control of rebel groups where armed forces were responsible for gorilla killings, as well as there
are reports of park rangers confirming fighting within or next to the gorilla habitat (Benz &
Benz-Schwarzburg, 2010). There is an obvious correlation between the violence of war and its
affect on great apes themselves and their habitats, but there are a few other consequences of war
that have significant importance as well.
During warfare, but also within unstable inter-war periods, rebel groups, militias, corrupt
policemen, politicians and even park rangers and civilians were involved in the illegal
exploitation of minerals, timber, charcoal and bushmeat (Benz & Benz-Schwarzburg, 2010).
Civilians are one of the most prominent figures in the bushmeat and resource-extraction problem,
and it is the war that causes this problem as well. A common feature of civil war is the mass
displacement of people, and if this involves movement across an international border, a
significant number of the ecological consequences of the conflict may be displaced into the
8
recipient country (Glew & Hudson, 2007). A modern example of this is what occurred between
Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1994. After the genocide in Rwanda, about
one million refugees came to the Democratic Republic of Congo and settled in five poorly
governed refugee camps on the edge of the Virunga National Park (Benz & Benz-Schwarzburg,
2010). In a study done by Glew & Hudson (2007), refugees were found to be responsible for the
majority of reported environmental impacts in both Rwanda (87%) and the Congo (87.4%).
Given that refugees were responsible, it is expected that impacts were focused on the
exploitation of the two resources essential for survival, food and timber (Glew & Hudson, 2007).
Refugees began illegally cutting down wood within the Virunga National Park due to becoming
dependent on fuel-wood and charcoal for short- and long-term survival (Benz & Benz-
Schwarzburg, 2010). It is clear that the displacement of people from one area into another has
detrimental impacts on great apes and their habitats. The increase in illegal resource exploitation
in protected areas during both conflict and its immediate aftermath is the product of a breakdown
of government infrastructure and the inability of conservation staff to act in protected areas
(Glew & Hudson, 2007).
The loss of conservation efforts is the final significant consequence of war on great apes
and their habitats that will be discussed in this paper. The eruption of armed conflict in the midst
of internationally backed conservation projects almost always leads to the immediate partial or
total withdrawal of support (Glew & Hudson, 2007). Conservation efforts are also not restored
automatically once conflict has subsided. Post-conflict funding is frequently directed toward
humanitarian and infrastructure repair projects prior to being directed at conservation, and
conservation efforts may feel the effects of this conflict for considerably longer than other
economic sectors (Glew & Hudson, 2007).
9
Even with all of this information, the impact of war on the African environment is poorly
documented, despite the Congo River Basin being one of the three remaining major tropical
wilderness areas in the world (Draulans & Krunkelsven, 2002). There is also a lack of research
into the costs of war on great apes and their habitats. Research on the consequences of internal
warfare tends to explore the socio-economic and, rarely, the ecological effects of civil wars for
human beings, while the negative ecological impacts for non-humans beings is entirely
disregarded (Benz & Benz-Schwarzburg, 2010). This lack of research on the effect of war on
great apes and their habitats has detrimental effects for conservation efforts as well, since most
believe that once conflict ends, everything will go back to normal for non-human primates.
Unfortunately, it is clear from the extent of the present instability in Central Africa that just
waiting until the political situation improves is no longer a viable option for the conservation of
great apes and biodiversity in general (Draulans & Krunkelsven, 2002).
Human Impacts on Great Ape Conservation
The conservation of great apes is a role in which humans play both a positive and
negative part. There are two main types of conservation that humans take part in and those are
conventional and extreme conservation (Robbins et al, 2011). Conventional conservation is
mainly targeted to minimize negative human influences upon a species and consists of efforts
such as law enforcement and community development projects (Robbins et al, 2011). Extreme
conservation is aimed at increasing positive human influences, such as the detection and
veterinary treatment of potentially life threatening conditions and close surveillance of individual
animals (Robbins et al, 2011). The most common virus that is life threatening to great ape
populations is respiratory disease. The degree of health threats posed by tourists depends on a
number of factors including, whether any tourist is infected with a risk disease, the mode of
10
transmission of the disease and how close the tourists get to the great apes (Sandbrook &
Semple, 2006). In a study done by Kndgen et al (2008), it was found that respiratory disease is
the most important cause of morbidity and mortality among wild great apes habituated to human
presence. Kndgen et al (2008) studied five distinct respiratory outbreaks that hit three
communities of habituated chimpanzees at the Ta Chimpanzee Research Project in 1999, 2004,
2005 and 2006. They conducted phylogenetic analyses on the pathogens that potentially transmit
from humans and chimpanzees (Kndgen et al, 2008). Their results suggest that the close
approach of humans to apes represents a serious threat to wild apes, while the presence of
humans for research and tourism has suppressed poaching, resulting in a strong positive
correlation between proximity to great ape habituation sites and the density of great apes
(Kndgen et al, 2008). It is already clear that conservation efforts towards great ape populations
are a double-edged sword. Though human involvement in conservation is seen as a mainly
positive thing, high human density can be detrimental to conservation and there is abundant
evidence indicating that it correlates with removal of natural habitat, damage to the environment
and extinction of species (Harcourt et al, 2001).
During tourism and research projects, the biggest problem that conservation
efforts face is how close human and ape contact is. The problem of close contact affects both
habituated and unhabituated apes equally, but for slightly different reasons. Whereas habituated
apes are subject to deliberate closeness through tourism and research, unhabituated apes are
subject to closeness through high human density (Blom et al, 2004). Blom et al, (2004) did a
study to determine the effect of local human populations on the density and distribution of great
apes within a protected area in the Dzanga-Ndoki National Park in Central Africa. They found
that three things typically signify a detrimental presence of humans, which are: the presence or
11
absence of ape nests, the presence of non-human primates and human presence and the type of
human presence (Blom et al, 2004). Different examples of human presence include hunting
evidence, such as snares, cartridges and nets, as well as footprints, camps and trails made by
humans (Blom et al, 2004). Blom et al (2004) concluded that human disturbance is an important
threat to the effectiveness of many of these protected areas and that further research and
monitoring systems should be implemented to document the negative effects of human density
on great ape habitats.
For habituated apes, it is the closeness of tourists that both positively and
negatively affects their lives and habitat. Tourism is generally considered a crucial component of
gorilla conservation strategies but tourists also pose a significant threat because there is a high
level of exposure between tourists and gorillas on a daily basis. (Sandbrook & Semple, 2006).
Two of the most popular tourist destinations for gorilla trekking enthusiasts are the Bwindi
Impenetrable Forest and the Virunga National Park, both of which have their habituated groups
in Rwanda. Though there are gorilla trekking rules in place, such as keeping 7m away from
gorillas at all time, the successful enforcement of these rules is difficult because of gorilla and
tourist behaviour (Sandbrook & Semple, 2006). In a study by Sandbrook and Semple (2006) at
the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, they conducted interviews with tourists to find out the reasons
why tourists get so close to the gorillas. In the interviews, they asked questions such as how
close tourists got to the gorillas at their closest contact, how long the contact lasted, the age of
the gorillas, who initiated the contact and the typical distance between tourists and the gorillas
during the visit (Sandbrook & Semple, 2006). They found that several factors helped to explain
why tourists get so close to the gorillas, which are as follows: the gorillas are over-habituated
and approach the tourists, the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest is dense, making it impossible to see
12
gorillas from 7m away which causes the guides to feel pressure to move closer, and the gorillas
are often dispersed over a wide area which causes tourists to become surround by them at close
contact (Sandbrook & Semple, 2006). Though these factors have been clearly found and
explained, it is still hard to enforce rules due to those who run the parks not wanting to deter
tourists from visiting as it generates millions of dollars per year for conservation efforts, proving
once again that the relationship between humans and conservation is a complicated one.
Human involvement in conservation may have its negative effects, but there is
more evidence suggesting that the effects are overwhelming positive for great apes. The Virunga
mountain gorillas that are habituated at the Virunga National Park are an excellent example of
how human influence can have many positive effects on a species. The Virunga mountain
gorillas, which are a critically endangered primate, have received an extraordinary level of both
conventional and extreme conservation and because of this, the efforts to save the Virunga
mountain gorillas represents an exceptional opportunity to compare two different conversation
approaches in the same population at the same time (Robbins et al, 2011). The entire population,
which is spread out across Rwanda, Uganda and the Congo, have all received conventional
conservation, but the habituated gorillas in Rwanda have also received extreme conservation
(Robbins et al, 2011). In their study, Robbins et al (2011) conducted time-series analysis to
compare the growth rates of habituated vs. unhabituated gorillas and sought to quantify how
poaching, respiratory disease and veterinary interventions had influenced the growth rate of the
habituated groups. Their results showed that the habituated groups had grown from 30 gorillas in
1967 to 339 gorillas in 2008, which represents a 6.6% increase per year and that veterinary
interventions accounted for 40% of the difference between the groups. (Robbins et al, 2011).
This study proves that habituated gorillas have been growing at a higher rate than unhabituated
13
and that conservation efforts should place more emphasis on daily monitoring and veterinary
interventions (Robbins et al, 2011). Though there are many negative human influences affecting
great ape conservation, focusing on conserving ape populations and their habitats raises public
awareness and funding for biodiversity conservation, overlaps with conservation priorities
identified for many other plant and animal species and helps maintain ecosystem services
(Junker et al, 2012).
Conclusion
Though humans play both an important and harmful role in great ape conservation, it is
both current and past negative anthropogenic impacts that have caused the need for conservation
in the first place. Humans have been destroying rainforest ecology since the extinction of the
megafauna and have continued to do so into modern day. Great apes and their habitats are
influenced constantly by deforestation, poaching, war and the negative consequences of research
and tourism. The main reasons for the sharp decline in great ape populations are decrease in the
area of occupancy and quality of habitats due to farming, road construction or resource
extraction, diseases, high levels of poaching and the illegal pet trade (Benz & Benz-
Schwarzburg, 2010). All of these problems are directly and indirectly caused by humans and
cannot be stopped until there is a deeper understanding of each subject and its correlation to the
extinction of great apes and the destruction of their habitats.






14
References
Benz, S., & Benz-Schwarzburg, J. (2010). Great apes and new wars. Civil Wars, 12(4), 395-430.
doi:10.1080/13698249.2010.534625
Blom, A., Zalinge, R. v., Mbea, E., Heitknig, I. M. A., & Prins, H. H. T. (2004). Human impact
on wildlife populations within a protected central african forest. African Journal of
Ecology,42(1), 23-31. doi:10.1111/j.0141-6707.2004.00441.x
Brncic, Terry, M, Willis, Katherine, J, Harris, David, J & Washington, Richard. (2007). Culture
or climate? the relative influences of past processes on the composition of the lowland congo
rainforest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1478),
229-242.
Corlett, R. T. (2013). The shifted baseline: Prehistoric defaunation in the tropics and its
consequences for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 163, 13-21.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.012
Draulans, D. V. K., E. (2002). The impact of war on forest areas in the democratic republic of
congo. Oryx, 36(1), 35-40. doi:10.1017/S0030605301000011
Gemerden, B. S. v., Olff, H., Parren, M. P. E., & Bongers, F. (2003). The pristine rain forest?
remnants of historical human impacts on current tree species composition and diversity. Journal
of Biogeography, 30(9), 1381-1390.
Glew, L., & Hudson, M. D. (2007). Gorillas in the midst: The impact of armed conflict on the
conservation of protected areas in sub-saharan africa. Oryx, 41(2), 140-150.
doi:10.1017/S0030605307001755
Harcourt, A. H, Parks, S. A, Woodroffe, R. (2001). Human density as an influence on
species/area relationships: double jeopardy for small African reserves. Biodiversity &
Conservation, 10(6), 1011-1026, doi: 10.1023/A:1016680327755
Junker, J., Blake, S., Boesch, C., Campbell, G., Toit, L. d., Duvall, C., . . . Imong, I. S. (2012).
Recent decline in suitable environmental conditions for african great apes. Diversity &
Distributions, 18(11), 1077-1091. doi:10.1111/ddi.12005
Kndgen, Sophie Kuehl, Hjalmar N'Goran, Paul K Walsh, Peter Schenk, Svenja Khl, Hjalmar
Formenty, Pierre Ernst, Nancy Biek, Roman Mtz Rensing, Kerstin Schweiger, Brunhilde
Junglen, Sandra Ellerbrok, Heinz Nitsche, Andreas Briese, Thomas Lipkin, W I Pauli, Georg
Boesch,Christophe Leendertz, Fabian. (2008). Pandemic human viruses cause decline of
endangered great apes. Current Biology, 18(4), 260-4. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.012
Robbins, M. M., Gray, M., Fawcett, K. A., Nutter, F. B., Uwingeli, P., Mburanumwe, I., . . .
Robbins, A. M. (2011). Extreme conservation leads to recovery of the virunga mountain
gorillas.Plos One, 6(6), 1-10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019788
15
Sandbrook, C and Semple, S. (2006). The rules and the reality of mountain gorilla gorilla berm
gel beringei tracking: How close do tourists get? Oryx, 40(4), 428-433.
doi:10.1017/S0030605306001323
White, L. J. T., & Oates, J. F. (1999). New data on the history of the plateau forest of okomu,
southern nigeria: An insight into how human disturbance has shaped the african rain
forest.Global Ecology and Biogeography, 8(5), 355-361.
Wright, S. J. (2005). Tropical forests in a changing environment. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 20(10), 553-560. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.07.009