Traditional ecological knowledge for great ape conservation in Gabon.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Mohamed H Mohamed-Djawad, Neil M Longo-Pendy, Serge Ely Dibakou, Costanza Puppo, Jean Nzue-Nguema, Désiré Otsaghe-Ekore, Patrice Makouloutou-Nzassi, Cyr Moussadji-Kinga, Alain P Kouga, Barthelemy Ngoubangoye, Pape Ibnou Ndiaye, Larson Boundenga
{"title":"Traditional ecological knowledge for great ape conservation in Gabon.","authors":"Mohamed H Mohamed-Djawad, Neil M Longo-Pendy, Serge Ely Dibakou, Costanza Puppo, Jean Nzue-Nguema, Désiré Otsaghe-Ekore, Patrice Makouloutou-Nzassi, Cyr Moussadji-Kinga, Alain P Kouga, Barthelemy Ngoubangoye, Pape Ibnou Ndiaye, Larson Boundenga","doi":"10.1186/s13002-025-00792-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) held by Indigenous communities is increasingly recognised as a cost effective, locally adapted complement to instrument-based wildlife monitoring. In southern Gabon, hunter trackers routinely distinguish chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes and western lowland gorilla Gorilla gorilla gorilla faeces in the field, yet the reliability of these identifications has never been rigorously tested.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-two experienced Indigenous participants guided systematic surveys across ~ 10 000 ha of unprotected forest near Makatamangoy and Tébé. For every faecal sample encountered, collaborators reached a consensual species identification using their customary criteria (colour, odour, texture, composition, quantity, associated footprints, vegetation disturbance). Samples (n = 637) were preserved in RNAlater<sup>®</sup> and later assigned to species by 12S rRNA mitochondrial sequencing. Agreement between Indigenous and molecular identifications was summarised in a confusion matrix; accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and Cohen's κ were calculated. The prevalence of each empirical criterion was expressed as the proportion of interviewees citing it, and species differences were tested with Fisher's exact tests (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Indigenous knowledge correctly identified 633 of 637 samples (overall accuracy = 99.37%; κ = 0.987, p < 0.001). Sensitivity was 99.1% for chimpanzee and 99.0% for gorilla, while specificity exceeded 99.6% for both species. Seven primary criteria underpinned identifications; colour (100%) and odour (86.4%) were most frequently evoked. Twelve of 24 sub-criteria differed significantly between species. Chimpanzee faeces were more often described as brown-yellow, soft and abundant with faint heelprints, whereas gorilla faeces were typically black, fibrous, hard and accompanied by pronounced heel and fist prints plus flattened vegetation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Indigenous trackers in Gabon demonstrate near-perfect accuracy in differentiating great ape faeces, validating TEK as a robust, low-cost tool for primate monitoring. Integrating this expertise into participatory conservation programmes could expand surveillance outside protected areas, enhance early detection of demographic or health changes, and strengthen community stewardship of threatened ape populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":49162,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine","volume":"21 1","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12139133/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-025-00792-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) held by Indigenous communities is increasingly recognised as a cost effective, locally adapted complement to instrument-based wildlife monitoring. In southern Gabon, hunter trackers routinely distinguish chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes and western lowland gorilla Gorilla gorilla gorilla faeces in the field, yet the reliability of these identifications has never been rigorously tested.

Methods: Twenty-two experienced Indigenous participants guided systematic surveys across ~ 10 000 ha of unprotected forest near Makatamangoy and Tébé. For every faecal sample encountered, collaborators reached a consensual species identification using their customary criteria (colour, odour, texture, composition, quantity, associated footprints, vegetation disturbance). Samples (n = 637) were preserved in RNAlater® and later assigned to species by 12S rRNA mitochondrial sequencing. Agreement between Indigenous and molecular identifications was summarised in a confusion matrix; accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and Cohen's κ were calculated. The prevalence of each empirical criterion was expressed as the proportion of interviewees citing it, and species differences were tested with Fisher's exact tests (α = 0.05).

Results: Indigenous knowledge correctly identified 633 of 637 samples (overall accuracy = 99.37%; κ = 0.987, p < 0.001). Sensitivity was 99.1% for chimpanzee and 99.0% for gorilla, while specificity exceeded 99.6% for both species. Seven primary criteria underpinned identifications; colour (100%) and odour (86.4%) were most frequently evoked. Twelve of 24 sub-criteria differed significantly between species. Chimpanzee faeces were more often described as brown-yellow, soft and abundant with faint heelprints, whereas gorilla faeces were typically black, fibrous, hard and accompanied by pronounced heel and fist prints plus flattened vegetation.

Conclusion: Indigenous trackers in Gabon demonstrate near-perfect accuracy in differentiating great ape faeces, validating TEK as a robust, low-cost tool for primate monitoring. Integrating this expertise into participatory conservation programmes could expand surveillance outside protected areas, enhance early detection of demographic or health changes, and strengthen community stewardship of threatened ape populations.

加蓬类人猿保护的传统生态知识。
背景:土著社区拥有的传统生态知识(TEK)越来越被认为是对基于仪器的野生动物监测具有成本效益和地方适应性的补充。在加蓬南部,猎人追踪者经常在野外区分黑猩猩、猿人和西部低地大猩猩,但这些识别的可靠性从未经过严格的测试。方法:22名经验丰富的土著参与者指导对Makatamangoy和tsamub附近约1万公顷的未保护森林进行系统调查。对于遇到的每个粪便样本,合作者使用他们的习惯标准(颜色、气味、质地、成分、数量、相关足迹、植被干扰)达成共识。样本(n = 637)保存在RNAlater®中,然后通过12S rRNA线粒体测序进行物种鉴定。在混淆矩阵中总结了本地鉴定和分子鉴定之间的一致性;计算准确性、敏感性、特异性、预测值和Cohen’s κ。每个经验准则的流行率表示为受访者引用该准则的比例,物种差异采用Fisher精确检验(α = 0.05)。结果:在637份样本中,土著知识正确识别了633份(总体正确率为99.37%;结论:加蓬本土追踪器在区分类人猿粪便方面表现出近乎完美的准确性,验证了TEK是一种强大、低成本的灵长类动物监测工具。将这种专门知识纳入参与性保护方案可以扩大保护区以外的监测,加强对人口或健康变化的早期发现,并加强对濒危猿类种群的社区管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
66
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine publishes original research focusing on cultural perceptions of nature and of human and animal health. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine invites research articles, reviews and commentaries concerning the investigations of the inextricable links between human societies and nature, food, and health. Specifically, the journal covers the following topics: ethnobotany, ethnomycology, ethnozoology, ethnoecology (including ethnopedology), ethnogastronomy, ethnomedicine, ethnoveterinary, as well as all related areas in environmental, nutritional, and medical anthropology. Research focusing on the implications that the inclusion of humanistic, cultural, and social dimensions have in understanding the biological word is also welcome, as well as its potential projections in public health-centred, nutritional, and environmental policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信