Pristine habitats serve as ecological resource for educational services and the conservation of biodiversity. The need to maintain a balance between nature and development is very important. When pristine habitats face changes due to anthropogenic activities, species erosion sets in and this will eventually lead to extinction. This subtle move in most cases is unnoticed until the effects are established. The pristine habitats in Ugep are faced with this challenge. The Ugep Urban Landuse Master Plan and Ugep Orthophoto map [1] have been used to identify the pristine habitats and further calculate the total landmass to be approximately 855.38 hectares. Ten (10) pristine habitats were identified within the residential blocks along the drainage corridors of Loblo, Isayi, Mma Oden, Kiwei, Ewiden and Oganghwen. The pristine block at Njelokoko-2 has the highest landmass, 201.01 hectares, representing 23.50 percent while Njelokoko-1 has the least landmass, 18.99 (2.22 percent). The spatial turnover of the species composition shows a trend of direct proportion with the landmass size and anthropogenic activities in the pristine habitats. Tree species such as Albizia zygia and Artocarpus communis rarely occurred together with other tree species. Among the bird species, it was observed that Dendropes goerae, Milvus migrans, Pica pica, and Streptopelia senegalensis roost, breed and feed in pristine habitats with emergent trees while Halocyno leucoephala, Halocyno malimbicus, Frasena clnernscens, Streptopelia semitorguata and Crimifer piscator are restricted to narrow corridors of pristine habitats along stream buffers. The nature that the pristine habitat portends and the species observed in such highly urbanized context as Ugep, are very important in conservation planning and meeting the urban challenges.
The importance of nature generally is as old as human existence and anthropogenic activities. Most residential areas are littered with pristine habitats that are used for social activities with little or no interest to probe further on the benefits of these habitats. Singapore nurtures its garden city image and currently has 2340 hectares of park and green areas and about 3000 hectares of nature reserves. Thus, Singapore’s urban planning preserves greenery, watershed clean air. The Mahim National Park project highlights the importance of green spaces to clean up Mumbai and decrease pollution levels [
Pristine habitats in Ugep urban have served as garbage dump, with slums on one side and dilapidated buildings on the other side. Today these sites are serving as ecologically restored nature sites dotted with plant and animal species. In 1998, the Cross River State Government of Nigeria conceived and established the Ugep Urban Development Authority (UUDA) with additional responsibility of developing, managing, promoting and day-to-day sanitization of the pristine sites without necessarily destroying the initial vegetation. Apart from providing residents with a green and unpolluted environment, pristine habitats in Ugep serve as recreational and educational resource, offering instructions in ecology, biodiversity and nature conservation. Thus, the pristine habitats are designated as outdoor laboratory serving as home to both fauna and flora, and for the study of different habitats and ecological functions of various species. In the main time, visitors to the pristine sites range from children from local slums and villages, to naturalist from around the world.
Greater habitat heterogeneity connotes greater species diversity [
As urban areas grow and develop, they rely on natural resources farther away to meet their production and consumption demands. In the process, their ecological footprint weighs heavier on natural environment [
Besides being located in the areas with non-renewable natural resources, most pristine habitats in Ugep are located in extensive watersheds with green areas, some having exotic species and concentrated high biodiversity. Considerable changes that are occurring in the pristine habitats because of both natural and anthropogenic transformation such as upstream developmental activities, urbanization and population pressure naturally have heavy toll on ecological integrity of pristine habitats. Pristine habitats are environmentally sensitive and fragile.
In recent times, the protection of the global environment has become of great concern. This is associated with the threat of environmental degradation following the activities of man in a bid to satisfy his needs. Land use and land cover change due to sprawl are current leading causes of biodiversity losses in pristine habitats within urban areas [
The Nigerian Environmental Study Team (NEST) revealed that the Nigerian environment is threatened by natural changes and human activities [
Under the present intensive use of land, Ugep is in danger of mass species erosion in the pristine habitat within the metropolis. The little or scanty knowledge base of the biodiversity status of the pristine habitat may hamper policies toward their preservation. This is particularly in context of competing land uses arising from growth and flux of population and expanding socio-economic activities in urban areas. Without a spread of strong knowledge base of genetic and species importance of pristine habitats and what potential they hold for biodiversity conservation, feature effort to preserve it will be jeopardized.
1) To identify the pristine habitats in the study area.
2) To examine the biodiversity status of the pristine habitats in the study area.
This paper is an attempt to identify the pristine habitats in the study area. Furthermore, it will highlight the need for urban planners to focus attention on the restoration and rehabilitation of pristine habitats to generate new values from such spaces. Also, in the bid promote tourism and sustainable cultural heritage in the conservation of biodiversity, and contribute to planning, monitoring and evaluation of pristine habitats.
The scope of this study is limited to Ugep, Nigeria. The tree community was taken among species that were found within demarcated sample plots for the purpose of this paper. Trees associated with streets and roadside plantings, household yards and gardens were excluded from floral inventorying because it is artificial. Bird inventorying were taken among bird species that are in the wild and those using the air space but captive birds were excluded.
Ugep lies between longitudes 08˚03'40"E and 08˚05'44"E, and latitudes 05˚47'30"N and 05˚48'33"N; occupying a total landmass of about 48 Km2. The zone of saturation in the cretaceous rocks of the area is shallow and ground water is available from joints and fissures. The shale rocks of the group promote flash floods with the result that most of the streams that drain the areas dry up soon [
The study area is located in one of the world’s richest biodiversity hot spot, the Lower Guinean Forest, separated from the rest of the Upper Guinean Forest by the Dahomey Gap [
Obtaining reliable and accurate information on the number and spatial distribution of the pristine habitat constitute a crucial step to understanding of biodiversity status of the study area. The Ugep Master Plan, Ugep Orthophoto Map [
Only site with pristine characteristic such as luxuriant trees with minimal or no interference of anthropogenic activities was used to facilitate investigation, hence, ten (10) pristine habitats were chosen (
The most fundamental pristine habitats in this study area have hierarchical structure that follows networks formed
Pristine Habitat | Habitat Identity on Study Map ( | Geographic Coordinates | Size (Hectare) | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|
Njelokoko―1 | A | 08˚04'40"E 05˚48'12"N | 201.01 | 23.50 |
Ijiman―1 | B | 08˚05'16"E 05˚47'48"N | 67.66 | 7.91 |
Bikobiko―1 | C | 08˚03'52"E 05˚48'06"N | 111.63 | 13.05 |
Ijiman―2 | D | 08˚03'46"E 05˚47'45"N | 83.23 | 9.73 |
Ntankpo | E | 08˚05'09"E 05˚48'10"N | 47.39 | 5.54 |
Ijiman―3 | F | 08˚04'04"E 05˚47'36"N | 112.31 | 13.13 |
Ketabebe | G | 08˚05'26"E 05˚48'54"N | 30.45 | 3.56 |
Ijiman―4 | H | 08˚05'30"E 05˚47'44"N | 154.31 | 18.04 |
Bikobiko―2 | I | 08˚03'58"E 05˚48'02"N | 28.40 | 3.32 |
Njelokoko―2 | J | 08˚04/30”E 05˚48/08”N | 18.99 | 2.22 |
Source: authors’ field research, 2015.
by stream systems. The pristine habitats at Bikobiko and Njelokoko are located along stream buffers while the pristine habitats at Ijiman and Ketabebe are located in the sites of ancient shrines (
As shown in
The extent of the natural area varied significantly across the urban gradient from city center to the exurban; vestiges of natural vegetation remain primarily along stream buffer, village squares and shrines. The most evident problem in the study area is that pristine habitats apart from being unevenly distributed, careful attention is not given to the ecological value they possess. The current spatial concept of the pristine habitats in the study area was observed to consist of two zones: the inner and outer pristine habitats. The inner pristine habitat (Njelokoko, Ntankpo and Bikobiko) are located at a transition between the city center and the new layout at the exurban. While the outer pristine habitats on the other hand, are located at the transition of the exurban. The expansion of built-up areas have not only reduced the size and influence the spatial spread of the pristine habitats, but has destroyed the habitats of tree and bird species, hence, giving rise to few surviving species to share available space. Consequently, this has created a horizontal heterogeneity, which is manifested by the disconti-
SPECIES | Exurban and Urban Green Area | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | Total | |
Alizia zygia (mimosoideae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Albizia gumifera (Mimosoideae) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
Bombax buonopozese | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
Terminalian ivorensis (combietaceae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Gmelina arborea (Verbeacease) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
Tectona grandis (Verbeacease) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
Magnifera indicia (Chryobalance) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
Chlorophora excelse (Moraceae) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | |
Terminalia guinesis (Ulmaceae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Combretum hispidum (Combretaceae) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Terminalia superb (Combretaceae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Combretodendron macrocarpum (Lecythidaceae) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Artocarpus commumis (Maraceae) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Elaeis guineensis (Aracaceae) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
Steculia oblonga (Streculiacea) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Irringia gabonensis (Irrengiacease) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Disthernonan thus spp. (Leginminoseae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Amphymas pterocarpoides | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Total number of species in sample plots | 11 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 5 | |
Total number of tree species | 17 | ||||||||||
Total number of families | 12 |
Source: authors’ field research, 2015.
SPECIES | Exurban and Urban Green Area | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | Total | |
Grey-headed kingfisher (Akedinidae) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Blue-breasted kingfisher (Akedinidae) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |
Grey-woodpeaker (Picidae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
Forest Robin (Turdidae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Forest-fly catcher (Muscipidae) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Sunbird (Rubescens) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
Ruff-throated sunbird (Nectariaridae) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Pied crow (Corvidae) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
Spectached weaver (Ploceidae) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Village weaver (Ploceidae) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Canary (Fringillidae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Waxbill (Estrillididae) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Cattle egret (Ardeidae) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
Heron (Aredidae) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Black kite (Acciptridae) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Palm-nut vulture (Pyconotidae) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Turkey vulture (Carthartidae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
African cuckoodhalrk (Accipitridae) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Red-eyed dove (Columbidae) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Laughing dove (Columbidae) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Spotted eagle owl (Straigidae) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Grey plantatin-eater (Musophaigidae) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Sand martin (Hirundinidae) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
Robin-chat (Turdiae) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Nightjar (Caprimulgidae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Typical (African palm swift). (Apodidae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Crested swift (Hemipronidae) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Total number of species in sample plots | 15 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 12 | 8 | 13 | 8 | 8 | |
Total number bird species | 28 | ||||||||||
Total number of families | 22 |
Source: authors’ field research, 2015.
nuity of emergent tree species at sites located at stream buffers. Tree species such as Gmelina arbora and Elaeis guineasis, Berlivea confuse and, Terminelia superba were frequently seen in the same habitat. Albizia zygia and Artocarpus communis rarely occurred together with other tree species.
Bird species such as Haloyno leucoephala, Halocyno malimbicus, Frasena clnernscens, Streptopelia semitoguata and Crimifer piscator are restricted to narrow corridors of pristine habitats along stream buffers. Dendropces goertae, Milvus migrans, Pica pica and Streptopelia senegalensis were observed in pristine habitats with emergent tree species at Ijiman and Ketabebe.
The main trust of this paper is to investigate the biodiversity status of pristine habitats in Ugep, Nigeria. While linking pattern of biodiversity changes to relation in land use, there is evidence consistent with the idea that land use can modify species richness and hence biodiversity. Despite obvious constrains on ecological function, pristine habitats in Ugep provide important insights into the collaboration with nature through biodiversity conservation. The stream buffers located within pristine habitats in the study area as well as the kind of nature that it portends in such highly urbanized context are very important in conservation planning. Local conservation actions like the development of pristine habitats are critical for addressing the biodiversity crises in the midst of anthropogenic activities. This paper has highlighted the collaboration between pristine sites and urban biodiversity with man at the center of activities. Developments centered on pristine habitats should be reduced to the lowest ebb if not completely stopped. Such action will help to promote scientific research and tourism through bird watch activities.
Peter OnenOka,Stanley MonkayukMajuk, (2016) Collaborating with Nature: The Pristine Habitats, in Ugep, Yakurr L.G.A., Nigeria. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection,04,46-52. doi: 10.4236/gep.2016.42006