Encephalartos caffer

Assessor: Sarah Schumann

Sensitive in 2010
Yes
Family
Zamiaceae
Reason for the sensitivity status
This taxon is deemed not sensitive. Although this species is known to be exploited and targeted whereby the illegal removal of wild individuals are causing population decline, the population size is not vulnerable and there is regeneration potential due to its widespread occurrence and large size, it may be able to recover from exploitation and it is unlikely that the entire extant population will be removed.
Exploitation extent
Significant - wild individuals of the species are known to be exploited, collected, traded or utilized in a targeted manner, and utilisation is widespread, affects the majority of wild populations and/or is causing rapid decline of the wild population.
Justification and references

All South African cycads as well as this species is included in Appendix I of the CITES Convention which lists all species threatened with extinction that are, or may be affected by trade. According to the SANBI Red List Assessment, this species is Near Threatened due to over-collection for ornamental purposes and habitat clearing as its major threats (Donaldson 2009; Donaldson 2003). The Population has declined by 25% (Donaldson 2009). Studies present strong evidence of ongoing and accelerating rates of decline in most cycad species due mainly to illegal removal (Okubamichael et al. 2016; Cousins & Witkowski 2017; Smith 2014). Research by Cousins (2012) shows that this species is among the 25 of 37 Encephalartos species that is being utilised for traditional medicine. In 2014, E. Caffer individuals in the Kirstenbosch Botanical Garden were stolen (Yeld 2014). The CITES Trade Database has recorded the trade of the species from 1981-2020 for commercial, personal, scientific, and botanical garden purposes. Sourced from artificial propagation and taken from the wild.

CITES trade statistics derived from the CITES Trade Database, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.

Cousins, S.R., Williams, V.L., & Witkowski, E.T.F. 2012. Uncovering the cycad taxa (Encephalartos species) traded for traditional medicine in Johannesburg and Durban, South Africa. South African Journal of Botany78, 129–138. DOI:10.1016/j.sajb.2011.06.001

Cousins, S.R. and Witkowski, E.T.F., 2017. African cycad ecology, ethnobotany and conservation: a synthesis. The Botanical Review83(2), pp.152-194.

Donaldson, J.S. 2003. Cycads. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Cycad Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK.

Donaldson, J.S. 2009. Encephalartos caffer (Thunb.) Lehm. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1.

Okubamichael, D. Y., S. L. Jack, J. D. Bösenberg, M. T. Hoffman & J. S. Donaldson. 2016. Repeat photography confirms alarming decline in south African cycads. Biodiversity Conservation 25(11): 2153–2170.

Smith, D. 2014. 1 September 2014. South Africa's ancient cycad plants under threat from poachers. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/ancient-cycad-plants-under-threat-poachers

Yeld, J. 2014. 7 August 2014. Cycad thieves strike again. IOL. Available at: https://www.iol.co.za/news/cycad-thieves-strike-again-17317990

Population vulnerability
Population is not vulnerable: size is > 2500 mature individuals, AND the number of known subpopulations is > 5 AND range > 100km2
Justification and references

The IUCN Red Lists states there are between 10 000 to 30 000mature individuals in the wild with a decreasing population trend (Donaldson 2010). According to the SANBI Red List Assessment, the species is widespread with numerous isolated subpopulations (Donaldson 2009).

Donaldson, J.S. 2009. Encephalartos caffer (Thunb.) Lehm. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1.

Donaldson, J.S. 2010. Encephalartos cafferThe IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T41929A10602384. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-3.RLTS.T41929A10602384.en

Targeted demographics
Mature (breeding) individuals are killed, significantly weakened or are permanently removed from the wild, OR immature individuals are targeted and this significantly impacts mature (breeding) individuals.
Justification and references

Live individuals, stems and seeds are known to be traded according to the CITES trade database. Collection of mature individuals for ornamental purposes are known (Donaldson 2009).

CITES trade statistics derived from the CITES Trade Database, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.

Donaldson, J.S. 2009. Encephalartos caffer (Thunb.) Lehm. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1.

Regeneration potential
This species has a fast population growth rate, and there is a good chance the wild populations will recover from exploitation.
Justification and references

The assessment of this species is difficult due to low growth and nature of surveying (Donaldson 2009). Research shows that cycads are generally long-lived, have slow growth rates, produce low numbers of offspring and have infrequent recruitment (Golding & Hurter 2003, Donaldson 2003, Cousins & Witkowski 2017). Viable seed production in Encephalartos populations tends to decline with decreasing population size (Cousins & Witkowksi 2017). As this species is widespread with a large population size, it may be able to recover from exploitation and it is unlikely that its the whole extant population will be removed (Bösenberg. DW, personal communication 2021, 1 December).

Cousins, S.R. and Witkowski, E.T.F., 2017. African cycad ecology, ethnobotany and conservation: a synthesis. The Botanical Review83(2), pp.152-194.

Donaldson, J.S. 2003. Cycads. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Cycad Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK.

Donaldson, J.S. 2009. Encephalartos caffer (Thunb.) Lehm. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1.

Golding, J.S. and Hurter, P.J.H., 2003. A Red List account of Africa's cycads and implications of considering life-history and threats. Biodiversity & Conservation12(3), pp.507-528.