Nigeria, 2002

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

2002 Summary Totals for Nigeria

Data Category	Definite	Possible	Speculative
Aerial or Ground Total Counts	328	0	0
Informed Guesses	150	340	260
Other Guesses	0	0	40
Total	478	340	300

No changes between current and previous report.

Nigeria : Elephant Estimates

	Survey Details²			Number of Elephants				Area	Map Location
Input Zone	Type	Reliab.	Year	Estimate	95% C.L.	Source	PFS³	(km²)	Lon.	Lat.
Andoni Island	IG3	D	2002	6	4*	Mshelbwala, 2002	3	215	7.5E	4.5N
Chad Basin (Chingurmi-Duguma) National Park Sector	IG3	D	1994	100		Mshelbwala, 1998	2	2,160	14.4E	11.7N
Cross River (Okwangwo) National Park	DC3	D	1998	74	56*	Obot et al., 1998	3	239	9.2E	6.3N
Gashaka-Gumti National Park	IG3	D	2002	20	30*	Barnwell pers. comm., 2002	1	5,860	11.7E	7.5N
Kambari	IG3	D	1998	5	10*	Gawaisa, quest. reply, 1998	2	2,000	10.6E	8.8N
Kwiambana Game Reserve	IG3	D	1993	80	40*	Hurst, quest. reply, 1994	2	1,715	6.6E	11.3N
Madagali & Kopre	IG3	D	1996	150	100*	Gawaisa, quest. reply, 1998	1	5,600	12.8E	11.1N
Okomu Game Sanctuary	OG3	E	1991	40		Natural Resources Conservation Council, 1991	2	1,082	5.1E	6.4N
Omo Forest Reserve	IG3	D	1994	30	20*	Mshelbwala, 1998	2	1,300	3.6E	6.8N
Taylor Creek	IG3	D	1993	25		Powell, in Thouless, 1993	3	145	6.4E	5.2N
Yankari National Park	AT3	A	1999	328		Nicholas, 1999	2	2,254	10.5E	9.8N

* 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.