The site was identified as internationally important for bird conservation in 2001 because it was regularly supporting significant populations of the species listed below, meeting ('triggering') IBA criteria.
Populations meeting IBA criteria ('trigger species') at the site:Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2001. The most recent assessment (2017) is shown below.
IBA conservation assessment | |||
---|---|---|---|
Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
2017 | poor | high | medium |
Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
yes | habitat | good |
State (condition of the trigger species' habitats) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Habitat | Quantity (% remaining) | Quality (% carrying capacity) | Result |
Shrubland | moderate (70–90%) | moderate (70–90%) | poor |
Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
Agricultural expansion and intensification | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | moderate decline (10–30% over 3 generations) | high |
Natural system modifications | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
Transportation and service corridors | likely in long term (>4 years) | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
Human intrusions and disturbance | happening now | few individuals/small area (<10%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | low |
Biological resource use | happening now | few individuals/small area (<10%) | no or slight decline (<1% over 3 generations) | low |
Climate change and severe weather | happening now | few individuals/small area (<10%) | no or slight decline (<1% over 3 generations) | low |
Residential and commercial development | likely in long term (>4 years) | few individuals/small area (<10%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | low |
Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Designation | Planning | Action | Result |
Whole area (>90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation | A management plan exists, but it is out of date or not comprehensive | Substantive conservation measures are being implemented, but these are not comprehensive and are limited by resources and capacity | medium |
Year | Protected Area | Designation (management category) | % coverage of IBA |
---|---|---|---|
1991 | Yankari | Game Reserve (IV) | 100 |
1999 | Yankari | Forest Reserve (II) | 79 |
Habitat | % of IBA | Habitat detail |
---|---|---|
Shrubland | 60 | |
Artificial/Terrestrial | 35 | |
Forest | 3 |
Land use | % of IBA |
---|---|
agriculture | - |
nature conservation and research | - |
tourism/recreation | - |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Yankari Game Reserve (Nigeria). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/yankari-game-reserve-iba-nigeria on 23/12/2024.