Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
31 March 2025 | Story Andre Damons | Photo Andre Damons
Prof Aliza le Roux
Prof Aliza le Roux, Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences and Professor in the Department of Zoology and Entomology, at the Southern African Mountain Conference (SAMC2025).

Animals in mountainous areas around the world, in particular endangered, vulnerable, and near threatened mammals, are at risk of becoming roadkill as road networks expand further into these previously inaccessible terrains.

These mammals, which fall into the category of conservation risk according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) definitions, include African wild dogs (endangered), lions and leopards (both vulnerable), elephants (endangered), and honey badgers (NT – near threatened). Among the road-killed birds found in these areas are the hooded vulture (critically endangered) and the endangered steppe eagle.

This is according to Prof Aliza le Roux, Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences and Professor in the Department of Zoology and Entomology, who presented research during a session at the Southern African Mountain Conference (SAMC2025). Prof Le Roux, a behavioural ecologist studying how animals respond to risks and opportunities in the environment, did an oral presentation titled Patterns of wildlife-vehicle collision in montane environments during a session on Mountain biodiversity: animals.

The conference, under the patronage of UNESCO and organised by the University of the Free State (UFS) Afromontane Research Unit (ARU) – in partnership with the African Mountain Research Foundation (AMRF) and the Global Mountain Safeguard Research Programme (GLOMOS) – brought together researchers, policy makers, and practitioners from across Southern Africa and beyond. It delved into critical issues around mountain ecosystems, communities, governance, and transboundary cooperation.

For the research, Prof Le Roux, Dr Katlego Mashiane, Lecturer in the UFS Department of Geography, and Dr Clara Grilo from the BIOPOLIS project in Portugal, looked for published data/papers from 1971 to 2024, finding that most of the published literature on roadkill in Africa came from the 21st Century.

 

Heightens risks to wildlife

According to her, they found that amphibians were killed at the highest rate in the mountainous regions, while mammals were killed most frequently in the low-lying regions. Mammalian species classified as near threatened or more vulnerable to extinction on the IUCN Red List were most frequently found in the high-elevation mountains (7,7% of species killed in these areas), but also in low-lying areas (3,8% of mammalian roadkill). About 3% of the birds killed at moderate elevations were also of conservation concern.

“Increased vehicular traffic and better-paved roads in montane environments heighten the risks to wildlife inhabiting these regions, including the potential for more wildlife-vehicle collisions, leading to higher mortality rates. In terms of sheer numbers, many more small species (less than 1 kg in adult weight) are killed than larger species. This is probably because we either don’t see them or don’t care if we hit them. But we do care if our cars collide with something large like an eland – it does damage to us as well as them.”

“Unpredictable weather patterns and sudden topographical changes all contribute to these roads potentially being more hazardous for both drivers and any surrounding wildlife: the ruggedness of these terrains and tortuosity of roads can make it harder for drivers and wild animals to detect one another on mountain roads, increasing the likelihood of collisions,” writes Prof Le Roux and her colleagues.

The researchers estimated the roadkill rates for each observed species and then analysed the correlation with topographic aspects of the study sites. They used the 90m digital elevation model downloaded from the geospatial cloud-computing platform Google Earth Engine and classified ‘high’ elevation mountains as regions lying above 2 000 metres above sea level (masl), ‘moderate’ elevation mountains as lying between 1 500 and 2 000 masl, and ‘low’ regions as areas below 1 500 masl.

 

Limited data

Prof Le Roux and Dr Mashiane also extracted slope and the topographic ruggedness index. Roadkill rates were estimated for 15 different amphibian species, 98 reptilian, 261 avian, and 273 mammalian species, comprising 5 549 individual road kills.

“These findings indicate that roads in mountainous African regions pose a high risk to our indigenous wildlife. The accidents in mountainous areas are something to be aware of, as we are moving further into mountains where there is often vulnerable and unique biodiversity. When we do kill vertebrates through a collision, it is often a species that we would not find in low-lying areas.”

Unfortunately, Prof Le Roux says, they cannot say what the continental patterns are because so little data is available about biodiversity and roadkill patterns in the central and western parts of the continent. The data they found came from only 10 countries, and almost none of the studies took the form of systematic, longitudinal monitoring. The data sets were all ‘snapshots’ of roadkill in specific areas.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept