Uganda, 2002

All Years for Uganda: 2016 — 2013 — 2007 — 2002 — 1998 — 1995

2002 Summary Totals for Uganda

Data Category	Definite	Possible	Speculative
Aerial or Ground Total Counts	1,690	0	0
Informed Guesses	374	210	200
Other Guesses	0	0	260
Total	2,064	210	460

No changes between current and previous report.

Uganda : Elephant Estimates

	Survey Details²			Number of Elephants				Area	Map Location
Input Zone	Type	Reliab.	Year	Estimate	95% C.L.	Source	PFS³	(km²)	Lon.	Lat.
Bugungu Wildlife Reserve	AT3	A	2002	0		Rwetsiba et al., 2002	2	490	31.6E	1.9N
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park	IG3	D	2002	30		McNeilage pers. comm., 2003	2	336	29.7E	1.0S
Karuma Wildlife Reserve	AT2	A	2002	0		Rwetsiba et al., 2002	2	415	32.0E	2.0N
Kibale National Park	IG3	D	1999	100	200*	Naughton et al., 1999	2	946	30.4E	0.5N
Kidepo Valley National Park	IG3	D	2000	374		Aleper pers. comm., 2002	2	1,416	33.8E	3.8N
Murchison Falls National Park	AT3	A	2002	692		Rwetsiba et al., 2002	1	4,064	31.8E	2.2N
Otze Forest	OG3	E	1998	200		Michelmore pers. comm., 1998	2	200	31.9E	3.7N
Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area	AT2	A	2002	998		Rwetsiba et al., 2002	1	1,977	30.0E	0.1S
Sango Bay	OG3	E	1998	30		Michelmore pers. comm., 1998	2	305	31.7E	0.9S
Semliki National Park	OG3	E	1998	30		Michelmore pers. comm., 1998	2	195	30.0E	0.8N
Toro (Semliki Valley) Wildlife Reserve	IG3	D	1998	80		Michelmore pers. comm., 1998	2	790	30.4E	1.0N

* Range of informed guess

¹Key to Causes of Change (only tracked since 2007): DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS ́ denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); –––: No Change

²Key to Survey Types: AC: Aerial Count, not specified; AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; EX: Extrapolation from GIS; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A-E (best to worst) as outlined in this table.

³PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.