Intl. J. of Mol. Ecol. and Conserv. 2012, Vol. 2, No.1, 21-25
24
Table 2 Estimated values of crop destroyed by primates in the study area
Crop
Study Area
Yam
Abanla
Imodi
Budo-Alhaji
Fomu
∑ (N)
43 771.20
59 720.17
59 619.06
54 682.21
Mean value (N)
3 979.18
3 981.33
3 974.60
3 905.86
Standard deviation (N)
19.23
14.21
26.53
236.60
Standard error (N)
5.80
3.67
6.85
63.23
Maize
∑ (N)
473 594.40
409 488.90
396 568.40
440 816.40
Mean value (N)
67 656.35
68 248.14
66 094.73
67 817.90
Standard deviation (N)
151.76
166.15
159.94
191.97
Standard error (N)
42.09
50.09
48.22
55.42
Cassava
∑ (N)
11 949.04
7 983.09
11 669.21
7 982.00
Mean value (N)
4 780.13
3 993.09
5 834.50
3 991.00
Standard deviation (N)
2.65
6.36
7.75
5.66
Standard error (N)
1.53
4.50
4.48
3.99
that destruction of crop by wild animal species
hardened
farmers'
attitude
against
wildlife
conservation. Loss of thousands and millions of Naira
of food crops in villages of a nation where 70.8% of
the population are living on less than one dollar a day
and 92.4% on less than two dollars a day (UNICEF,
2006,
.
html.) can further impoverished people living in such
areas. Akinyemi and Oduntan (2004) argued that
killing of wild animal is not an activity in which
people engage in for the purpose of deriving leisure from
it, rather it is an activity associated in one form or the
other with the upliftment of living standard of people.
2.3
Primate damage control
Results also shows (Figure 1) that three basic
techniques were in use in controlling damages by
primates in the study areas. The techniques include the
use of traps, chasing and the use of fire arms. While
some of the respondents claimed that they only fire
gun shot into the air to scare the animals away; some
others disclose that there are occasions when many of
the primate had been killed either intentionally or
otherwise. This finding however, corroborates that of
Oduntan et al (2009) where unfavorable attitude of
farmers to wild animal species was traced to the
information gathered on the estimated number of
farmers that lost crops to wild animal species and the
rate of occurrence.
Figure 1 Distribution of techniques used in the control of
primates invasion on farmlands in the study areas
The result further revealed that most of the respondents
(43.33%, 50.00%, 39.30%
and 46.15% at Abanla,
Imodi, Budo Alhaji and Fomu respectively) engaged
the use of fire arms in the control of Primates on their
farmlands. Distribution on the use of fire arms was
closely followed by use of traps with a representation
of 33.33%, 35.71%, 35.71% and 38.50% of
respondents in the respective villages. However, both
the use of fire arms and traps are known to be
unfriendly to wildlife conservation as it can either lead
to outright killing of wild animal or rendering them
wounded. It can be deduced from this result that if this
methods of controlling primate invasion on farmlands
are not quickly checked, the animals may soon be
wiped out in the National Park.
