With a declining population of roughly 3000-5000 individuals in Africa, African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) are one of the most endangered carnivores in the world. As the global human population expands, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that large portions of land will be set aside for conservation, especially in developing countries. Thus, recent wild dog conservation efforts in South Africa have concentrated on establishing a managed metapopulation. A metapopulation is a group of geographically isolated subpopulations of a species that are managed (using supplementation and harvesting) to mimic natural gene flow. The Great Fish River Nature Reserve (GFRNR) in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa has been identified as a potential reserve to become part of the national wild dog metapopulation. My research aimed to conduct a feasibility assessment of the long-term (~ 25 years) success of a wild dog reintroduction into the GFRNR. This assessment included biological modelling of wild dogs and their expected prey, and determining the potential anthropogenic threats to wild dogs on the private and communal land surrounding the reserve. I used VORTEX population modelling and determined that the GFRNR is likely to have a wild dog carrying capacity of ~22 individuals. Using a 25-year modelling simulation, the most appropriate wild dog reintroduction scenario would be to reintroduce six females and four males initially and supplement the population with one female and two males in years 3, 10, 15 and 23. In addition, the harvesting/removal of one male and one female in years 10 and 20 would be required to ensure 100% population persistence and adequate genetic diversity. Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) and bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) are expected to be the two most important prey species for reintroduced wild dogs in the GFRNR. Furthermore, wild dogs are likely to prefer the north-western and south-western sectors of the reserve because of the relatively high prey densities in these areas. However, regular monitoring of both the potential prey and the wild dog populations is essential to ensure persistence of the wild dogs and to prevent prey populations decreasing precipitously. Using structured questionnaire interviews (n = 128), I found that while neighbouring land owners and local communities were generally positive about the potential wild dog reintroduction (56 % of all respondents), several threats to wild dogs were identified along the reserve boundary and on the adjoining unprotected land. Some private landowners and members of rural communities around the reserve (34 %) stated that they would kill any wild dogs that dispersed onto their land. In addition, some respondents (8 %) admitted to believing in traditional uses for wild dog products (e.g. fur) which could result in the illegal killing of wild dogs outside of the GFRNR for traditional purposes. Poaching and the presence of unvaccinated domestic dogs on neighbouring land were also identified as being potential threats to a reintroduced wild dog population. However, such anthropogenic threats appear to be localised to the western and southern boundaries of the reserve. Therefore, by implementing preventative measures (such as anti-snare collars, anti-poaching patrols and vaccination against rabies and canine distemper) the likelihood of such threats occurring can be reduced. I conclude that the GFRNR can sustain a population of wild dogs and successfully contribute to South Africa‘s national metapopulation. An additional reserve will benefit the country‘s metapopulation by increasing the number of wild dogs available for translocation, thereby increasing genetic diversity and overall resilience (to environmental change, disease etc.) of South Africa‘s wild dog population. This will contribute towards the future conservation of this endangered species.

The nutrient dynamics in two contrasting estuaries and in the adjacent nearshore environment along the south-east coast of South Africa was investigated seasonally. Due to an inter-basin transfer of water from the Gariep Dam to the Great Fish River, the Great Fish estuary is a fresh water dominated, terrestrially driven system with an annual fresh water inflow of 250 – 650 x 10⁶ m³ per year. In contrast, the Kariega estuary is a fresh water deprived, marine dominated system with a fresh water inflow estimated at 2.5 – 35 x 10⁶ m³per year. The reduced fresh water inflow into the estuary is attributed to regular impoundments along the Kariega River. Water samples were collected from surface and subsurface layers along the length of the estuaries as well as from a series of transects occupied in the nearshore environment. Samples were analysed for nitrate, nitrite, ammonium, phosphate and silicate. Temperature and salinity were recorded at each station. A Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) budget was constructed for each estuary to describe the role of ecosystem-level metabolism as either a sink or a source of phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon. Seasonal variation in physico-chemical properties and nutrient concentrations in the Kariega estuary was minimal due to constant low inflow, while in the Great Fish estuary, concentrations varied in response to changes in flow rate. Nutrient concentrations were consistently higher in the Great Fish estuary than in the Kariega estuary, largely reflecting differences in fresh water inflow. During periods of high flow (32.92 m³.s⁻¹in the Great Fish River) dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) concentrations in the Great Fish estuary were an order of magnitude higher than those recorded in the Kariega estuary. Results of the LOICZ budgeting procedures revealed that in spite of the contrasting hydrodynamic features, the estuaries behave in largely the same manner – both predominantly sources of nutrients with heterotrophic processes dominating over autotrophic actions and both were net denitrifyers during all surveys. This was, however, due to different sets of processes operating in the two estuaries, namely low nutrient concentrations resulting in microbial activity in the Kariega estuary, and riverine influx of nutrients and phytoplankton combined with a short residence time of the water in the Great Fish estuary. In the marine nearshore environment, higher nutrient concentrations were recorded adjacent to the Great Fish estuary than offshore of the Kariega estuary. This was due to a surface plume of less saline water leaving the Great Fish estuary, which acted as an ‘outweller’ of nutrients. Offshore of the Kariega estuary, on the other hand, the nutrient concentrations were characteristic of marine waters due to a lack of fresh water outflow from the estuary. Nutrient concentrations in the marine environment adjacent to the Kariega estuary were, at times, higher than those recorded within the estuary. This observation supports previous statements which suggest that the Kariega estuary is not an ‘outweller’ of dissolved nutrients and particulate material, but rather an extension of the marine environment.

Ecotourism has often failed to deliver appropriate, tangible benefits to host communities living near protected areas in developing regions of Africa. The Robford Community Conservation Benefit Centre (RCCBC) model was developed as a means to overcome many of the common problems of community-based ecotourism and to enhance the range and flow of benefits to such communities by developing a suite of products and programmes aimed specifically at scientists, volunteer tourists and participatory environmental research tourists. This study tests the aims that the necessary tourism, geographic, social and research conditions are present for the implementation of the RCCBC model in a local community situated close to the Great Fish River Nature Reserve (GFRNR) in South Africa. Situational assessment fieldtrips determined that the GFRNR, its immediate tourism egion and the ten settlements surrounding the nature reserve conformed to RCCBC development guidelines and were suitable for further detailed investigation. One of the settlements, Glenmore Village, conformed most closely to the RCCBC model’s guidelines for selecting a preferred host community. A census survey of all households in Glenmore determined a demographic profile of village residents. A random sample survey of 70 Glenmore households established a social profile of the community’s residents and their attitude to various aspects of the RCCBC model. A spatial analysis of the Glenmore precinct determined that sufficient, suitable land was available for the development of RCCBC products and programmes. The findings of the research indicated that the tourism, geographic, social and research conditions were present at Glenmore, the GFRNR and its surrounding tourism region for the implementation of the RCCBC model and the development of the model’s proposed products and programmes at Glenmore Village. Implementation of the RCCBC model at Glenmore and the GFRNR as a pilot study could introduce a new way of bringing tangible, meaningful benefits to select communities located close to protected areas in existing tourism regions that have failed to benefit either completely or partially from traditional forms of ecotourism development in the past. / Environmental Sciences / M. Sc. (Environmental Management)

Ecotourism has often failed to deliver appropriate, tangible benefits to host communities living near protected areas in developing regions of Africa. The Robford Community Conservation Benefit Centre (RCCBC) model was developed as a means to overcome many of the common problems of community-based ecotourism and to enhance the range and flow of benefits to such communities by developing a suite of products and programmes aimed specifically at scientists, volunteer tourists and participatory environmental research tourists. This study tests the aims that the necessary tourism, geographic, social and research conditions are present for the implementation of the RCCBC model in a local community situated close to the Great Fish River Nature Reserve (GFRNR) in South Africa. Situational assessment fieldtrips determined that the GFRNR, its immediate tourism egion and the ten settlements surrounding the nature reserve conformed to RCCBC development guidelines and were suitable for further detailed investigation. One of the settlements, Glenmore Village, conformed most closely to the RCCBC model’s guidelines for selecting a preferred host community. A census survey of all households in Glenmore determined a demographic profile of village residents. A random sample survey of 70 Glenmore households established a social profile of the community’s residents and their attitude to various aspects of the RCCBC model. A spatial analysis of the Glenmore precinct determined that sufficient, suitable land was available for the development of RCCBC products and programmes. The findings of the research indicated that the tourism, geographic, social and research conditions were present at Glenmore, the GFRNR and its surrounding tourism region for the implementation of the RCCBC model and the development of the model’s proposed products and programmes at Glenmore Village. Implementation of the RCCBC model at Glenmore and the GFRNR as a pilot study could introduce a new way of bringing tangible, meaningful benefits to select communities located close to protected areas in existing tourism regions that have failed to benefit either completely or partially from traditional forms of ecotourism development in the past. / Environmental Sciences / M. Sc. (Environmental Management)