Uganda, 1998

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

1998 Summary Totals for Uganda

Data Category	Definite	Probable	Possible	Speculative
Aerial or Ground Total Counts	215	0	0	0
Aerial or Ground Sample Counts	0	565	622	0
Informed Guesses	0	0	1,040	0
Other Guesses	0	0	0	280
Total	215	565	1,662	280

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.
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park	OG3	E	1998	20		Michelmore, pers. comm., 1998	2	336	29.7E	1.0S
Kibale National Park	IG3	D	1994	150		Edroma, 1994	2	946	30.4E	0.5N
Kidepo Valley National Park	AT2	A	1992	215		Olivier, 1992	1	1,416	33.8E	3.8N
Kigezi Wildlife Reserve	AS2	B	1995	229	545	MTWA, 1996	2	850	29.8E	0.5S
Luwero	IG3	D	1998	10		Michelmore, pers. comm., 1998	2	510	31.9E	1.2N
Murchison Falls National Park	AS2	B	1995	336	300	MTWA, 1996	1	3,795	31.8E	2.2N
Otze Forest	OG3	E	1998	200		Michelmore, pers. comm., 1998	2	200	31.9E	3.7N
Queen Elizabeth National Park	IG3	D	1998	800		Michelmore, Pers. Comm., 1998	1	2,343	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	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.