9 research outputs found
Consumers' knowledge of textile label information: an exploratory investigation
No full textTextile label information facilitates consumers' pre- and post-purchase decisions. Because consumers' knowledge regarding this information is relatively unexplored in a South African context, it was the focus of this exploratory descriptive study. A face-to-face survey was employed among respondents (n = 120) recruited at selected public locations in Potchefstroom, North-West Province, South Africa, according to predetermined inclusion criteria. The majority of respondents were able to correctly locate specific information (such as country of origin, size and fibre content; 75%) and identify textile and care symbols (78%) on the label, but were less knowledgeable about synthetic fibres (41%) and certain care symbols (53–58%). More educated, younger respondents speaking Eurocentric languages (Afrikaans and English) appeared to be more knowledgeable about textile label information than respondents speaking an African language. Even though respondents had excellent label knowledge in most instances, a lack of practical application of this knowledge was evident in their reading of care labels pre- and post-purchase, as well as in their use of textile labels to make purchasing decisions. Educational programmes regarding textile labels should thus emphasize the skills that are necessary to optimally utilize label
Exploring consumers’ risk perception in wine retail decision-making : insights for Chenin blanc
No full textThesis (PhDAgric)--Stellenbosch University, 2019.ENGLISH ABSTRACT: South Africa is a large wine producing country without a wine-drinking culture. Therefore, the development of the domestic wine market is a priority of the Wine Industry Strategic Exercise (WISE). The study of risk perception is known to provide insights, valuable for marketing initiatives aiming to gain market share. Previous researchers identified significant perceived risks and risk-reducing strategies for wine as a generic category. However, this study was a pioneering effort to explore and describe consumer risk perception of a specific wine varietal.
Chenin blanc, South Africa’s most planted wine grape variety, accounts for 23% of all varieties crushed for wine production. However, from 2011-2017, domestic Chenin blanc sales appeared to be low in the South African 750ml bottled white wine category. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore and describe consumers’ perceived risk of Chenin blanc wine. As South African consumers purchase wine primarily from retail stores, the study focused exclusively on consumers’ retrospective, in-store decision-making of white wine.
An exploratory sequential mixed methods research approach was followed. Using semi-structured, personal interviews, consumers of white wine (n=8) were firstly interviewed to gain an understanding of Chenin blanc perceptions. Qualitative data, in combination with theory, were used to develop a measurement instrument, utilised in the sequential core quantitative phase. The measurement instrument was pilot tested (n=62) to assess internal reliability. Consequently, an online survey was used to collect data from a sample (n=2051) of wine consumers. Statistical analysis confirmed that the scales used were valid and reliable. Being the first instrument to measure wine varietal-specific perceived risk, further recommendations were made to improve some construct items.
The results show that there were significant differences in consumers’ quality perception, subjective knowledge, purchase frequency and perceived goodness-of-fit for occasions between white wine varietals. Based on a comparison between Chenin blanc and the white wine category in general, Chenin blanc was perceived to be less available with a lower amount of information available, while respondents indicated to be more risk averse and lacking self-confidence to evaluate Chenin blanc in a purchase situation. The main perceived risks in the case of Chenin blanc were functional, time and financial risks, while respondents indicated to use another wine varietal as a risk-reducing strategy. Age appeared to have little influence on respondents’ Chenin blanc perceived risk, but there were significant differences between ethnic groups’ Chenin blanc perceived risk. Potential target markets for Chenin blanc were identified with strategies recommended to reduce Chenin blanc perceived risk.
Results of this study make a valuable contribution, not only to the South African wine industry, but also to the international body of knowledge on consumers’ wine decision-making. The exploratory sequential mixed methods research approach and varietal-specific measurement instrument can be replicated to study other struggling varietals or even regions-of-origin aiming to gain market share. The target market identified, with strategies to reduce Chenin blanc-specific perceived risks, can be used by the South African wine industry to develop a Chenin blanc marketing plan, aiming to increase market share.AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Suid-Afrika is ‘n groot wynproduserende land sonder ‘n wyndrink-kultuur. Daarom is die ontwikkeling van die plaaslike wynmark ‘n prioriteit van die “Wine Industry Strategic Exercise” (WISE). Die studie van risiko-persepsie is bekend om waardevolle insae vir bemarkingsinisiatiewe, ten doel om markaandeel te vergroot, te lewer. Vorige navorsers het betekenisvolle waargenome risiko’s asook risiko-verminderingstrategieë vir wyn as generiese kategorie geïdentifiseer. Hierdie studie is egter ‘n eerste om verbruikers se risiko-persepsie van ‘n spesifieke wynvariëteit te ondersoek en te beskryf.
Chenin blanc, Suid-Afrika se mees aangeplante wyndruifvariëteit, verteenwoordig 23% van alle variëteite wat vir wynproduksie gepars word. Maar, van 2011-2017, blyk plaaslike Chenin blanc verkope in die Suid-Afrikaanse 750ml witwyn bottelkategorie laag te wees. Vir hierdie rede was die doel van hierdie studie om verbuikers se risiko-persepsie van Chenin blanc te ondersoek en te beskryf. Omdat Suid-Afrikaanse verbruikers wyn grotendeels by kleinhandelwinkels aankoop, het hierdie studie eksklusief op verbruikers se retrospektiewe besluitneming van witwyn binne die winkelomgewing gefokus.
‘n Eksploratiewe, opvolgende gemengde metode navorsingsbenadering is gevolg. Om Chenin blanc persepsies te verstaan, is semi-gestruktureerde, persoonlike onderhoude eerstens met verbruikers van witwyn (n=8) gevoer. Kwalitatiewe data, in kombinasie met literatuur, is gebruik om ‘n meetinstrument te ontwikkel wat in ‘n opvolgende kern kwantitatiewe fase gebruik is. Die meetinstrument is onderwerp aan ‘n loodstudie (n=62) om interne betroubaarheid te toets. Daarna is ‘n aanlynopname gebruik om data in te samel onder ‘n steekproef (n=2051) van wynverbruikers. Skale se geldigheid en betroubaarheid is deur statistiese analise bevestig. Omdat hierdie instrument die eerste is om wynvariëteit-spesifieke risiko persepsie te meet, is verdere aanbevelings gemaak om sommige konstrukitems te verbeter.
Die resultate dui op betekenisvolle verskille wat betref verbruikers se kwaliteitspersepsie, subjektiewe kennis, aankoopfrekwensie en voorkeurkeuse vir geleenthede tussen witwynvariëteite. Gebasseer op ‘n vergelykig tussen Chenin blanc en die witwynkategorie oor die algemeen, is daar ‘n persepsie dat Chenin blanc minder beskikbaar is, ook met minder inligting, terwyl respondente aangedui het dat hul meer risiko-vermydend optree en laer selfvertroue het om Chenin blanc in ‘n aankoopsituasie te evalueer.
Die grootste waargenome risiko’s in die geval van Chenin blanc was funksioneel-, tyd- en- finansiële risiko’s terwyl respondente aangedui het om ‘n ander wynvariëteit as ‘n risiko-verminderingstrategie te gebruik. Ouderdom het minimale invloed op respondente se Chenin blanc risiko-persepsie gehad, maar daar was betekenisvolle verskille tussen etniese groepe se Chenin blanc risiko-persepsie. Potensiële teikenmarkte is vir Chenin blanc geïdentifiseer met aanbevelings vir strategieë om Chenin blanc risiko-persepsie te verlaag.
Resultate van hierdie studie maak ‘n waardevolle bydrae, nie net vir die Suid-Afrikaanse wynbedryf nie, maar ook vir die internasionale liggaam van kennis oor verbruikers se wynbesluitneming. Die eksploratiewe opvolgende gemengde metode navorsingsbenadering en variëteit-spesifieke meetinstrument kan genaboots word om ander sukkelende variëteite of streke van oorsprong wat markaandeel wil vergroot, te ondersoek. Met die doel om markaandeel te vergroot, kan die geïdentifiseerde teikenmark, met strategieë om Chenin blanc-spesifieke waargenome risiko’s te verlaag, deur die Suid-Afrikaanse wynbedryf gebruik word om ‘n bemarkingsplan vir Chenin blanc te ontwikkel
The effects of body position on the distribution of obstructive, mixed and central sleep apnoea
No full textBACKGROUND. Obstructive sleep apnoea is commonly aggravated by the supine body position. The impact of body position on the severity
of mixed and central sleep apnoeas is understudied.
OBJECTIVES. To evaluate the impact of body position on obstructive, mixed and central apnoea indices in subjects presenting with this triform
of sleep apnoea during a single polysomnogram.
METHODS. We retrospectively analysed 26 polysomnograms where obstructive, mixed and central apnoeas each occurred at a rate >5/hr.
Comparisons between lateral and supine body positions were made for obstructive apnoea index (OAI), mixed apnoea index (MAI), central
apnoea index (CAI), apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) and obstructive apnoea-hypopnoea index (OAHI).
RESULTS. Mean (SD) apnoea indices were significantly lower in lateral v. supine positions, respectively: MAI 15.06 (18.34) v. 32.09 (17.05);
p<0.001, CAI 11.82 (11.77) v. 23.82 (14.18); p<0.001, AHI 79.46 (31.17) v. 99.47 (26.33); p<0.001, OAHI 67.87 (28.25) v. 76.00 (23.21);
p=0.039. Unexpectedly, the converse was seen for OAI when comparing the lateral v. supine position: 53.10 (30.64) v. 43.58 (25.83); p=0.009,
respectively.
CONCLUSION. It may be beneficial for subjects with a combination of obstructive, mixed, and central apnoeas to avoid the supine body
position. In this triform phenotype, mixed apnoeas are neither purely obstructive nor purely centrally mediated. Furthermore, obstructive,
mixed, and central apnoeas may be different representations of a single respiratory abnormality.First author, GC, funded the study.http://www.ajtccm.org.za/index.php/SARJam2020School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH
Using rapid city surveys to inform municipal social policy : an application in Cali, Colombia
No full textMany developing countries assign local governments increasing responsibilities in fighting poverty. This requires local social policy to go beyond the execution of centrally designed and funded education and health programs. Hence, local governments and their partners have both an opportunity and a need to analyze key local bottlenecks for poverty reduction and social development. Drawing on an example from Cali, Colombia, The author describes a tool for such policy formulation at the local level-a rapid city household survey. Although the survey uses pre-coded and closed- ended questions, it is contextual in the sense that it is tailor-made to social and economic conditions in Cali. The survey places particular emphasis on collecting key quantitative information, such as household welfare and service access, as well as qualitative information, such as service evaluations and population priorities. Combining the quantitative and qualitative data allows, for example, the mapping of population budget priorities or service satisfaction levels by welfare group. Rapid city household surveys could provide an important tool for the development of local social policies.Health Economics&Finance,Environmental Economics&Policies,Health Monitoring&Evaluation,Public Health Promotion,Health Systems Development&Reform,Poverty Assessment,Health Economics&Finance,Health Monitoring&Evaluation,Environmental Economics&Policies,Governance Indicators
Conservation Assessments: Hesperiidae; Lycaenidae: Alaena - Capys
No full textIssue consists of one article divided into downloadable PDFs.
This section contains the conservation assessments and Red Listings (all global) of the taxa assessed during the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA) project, ordered alphabetically by family and then by genus, species and subspecies. Details of the methods used can be found in the main article, with each assessment set out as follows:
Taxon scientific name followed by the describer of the taxon and the date.
English and Afrikaans common names.
Name of the assessor/ taxon author.
Red Listing with relevant categories and criteria, as per the IUCN Red Listing protocol (IUCN, 2017).
For those Least Concern taxa which are rare, their rarity category is also given.
Also indicated are those taxa endemic to the South Africa.
Taxon images are arranged with males above and females below (upper side and underside). Specimen label data and photo credits are tabulated on pages 155–160.
Seasonality table: This table shows the months of occurrence of the taxon, starting August and ending July. Each month is divided into quarters. Quarters for which there are Accepted records are highlighted in grey.
Distribution map: The map’s extent is for South Africa. Data points are displayed for Accepted and Locally Extinct records. The following key is used for each data point:
Red List category
Symbol
EX (also if a taxon is locally extinct)
Black
CR‒PE
Dark purple
CR
Red
EN
Orange
VU
Yellow
NT
Mustard
DD
Lilac
LC (rare categories)
Blue
LC
Green
Type locality: As originally stated by the describer.
Taxonomy: Highlighting any relevant taxonomic issues.
Distribution: A description of the taxon’s distribution.
Habitat: A description of the taxon’s habitat.
Vegetation types: The vegetation types where the taxon is found, based on the 2018 vegetation map (SANBI, 2018), for records flagged as both Accepted and Locally Extinct. For those sites where the taxon is locally extinct, the vegetation types are given in parentheses.
Assessment rationale: The assessment rationale provides information which justifies the Red Listing and related categories and criteria.
Change in status from the Southern African Butterfly Conservation Assessment (SABCA): For those taxa where the Red Listing changed from the previous SABCA assessment of 2012 (Mecenero et al., 2013), an evaluation is given of whether or not the change in status is genuine or non-genuine.
Threats: A description of any threats relevant to the taxon.
Conservation measures and research required: Any conservation measures or research required are mentioned here, where relevant.
Relevant literature: Taxon-specific references published since SABCA are listed in this field, where applicable. The key references listed below were perused for all assessments.
An example of citing a specific conservation assessment:
“Woodhall, S.E. 2020. Abantis bicolor. pp. 34–35 In: Mecenero et al. 2020. Outcomes of the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA). Metamorphosis 31(4): 1–160”.
Abbreviations:
AOO: Area of occupancy
CR: Critically Endangered
CR–PE: Critically Endangered – Possibly Extinct
DD: Data Deficient
EN: Endangered
EOO: Extent of occurrence
EX: Extinct
LC: Least Concern
NT: Near Threatened
VU: Vulnerable
RELEVANT LITERATURE
The relevant literature listed below applies to all the conservation assessments. Literature applying only to specific taxa is given after each conservation assessment.
HENNING, G.A., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 2009. South African Red Data Book: butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity Series Pretoria, South African National Biodiversity Institute. 13: 1–158.
IUCN. 2017. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 13. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Download from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf
MECENERO, S., BALL, J.B., EDGE, D.A., HAMER, M.L., HENNING, G.A., KRÜGER, M., PRINGLE, E.L., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & WILLIAMS, M.C. 2013. Conservation Assessment of Butterflies of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: Red List and Atlas. Saftronics (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg & Animal Demography Unit, Cape Town.
PRINGLE, E.L., HENNING, G.A. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 1994. Pennington's Butterflies of southern Africa. 2nd Edition. Cape Town, Struik-Winchester. 1–800, 210 pls.
SANBI. 2018 Beta Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Shapefile) [vector geospatial dataset] 2018. https://bgis.sanbi.org/SpatialDataset/Detail/669 (Accessed on 28 June 2020).
WILLIAMS, M.C. 2019. Afrotropical Butterflies Encyclopaedia. http://www.metamorphosis.org.za/?p=articles&s=atb
WOODHALL, S.E. 2020. Field guide to butterflies of South Africa (2nd Edn). Penguin Books South Africa
Conservation Assessments: Lycaenidae: Chrysoritis - Durbaniella
No full textIssue consists of one article divided into downloadable PDFs.
This section contains the conservation assessments and Red Listings (all global) of the taxa assessed during the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA) project, ordered alphabetically by family and then by genus, species and subspecies. Details of the methods used can be found in the main article, with each assessment set out as follows:
Taxon scientific name followed by the describer of the taxon and the date.
English and Afrikaans common names.
Name of the assessor/ taxon author.
Red Listing with relevant categories and criteria, as per the IUCN Red Listing protocol (IUCN, 2017).
For those Least Concern taxa which are rare, their rarity category is also given.
Also indicated are those taxa endemic to the South Africa.
Taxon images are arranged with males above and females below (upper side and underside). Specimen label data and photo credits are tabulated on pages 155–160.
Seasonality table: This table shows the months of occurrence of the taxon, starting August and ending July. Each month is divided into quarters. Quarters for which there are Accepted records are highlighted in grey.
Distribution map: The map’s extent is for South Africa. Data points are displayed for Accepted and Locally Extinct records. The following key is used for each data point:
Red List category
Symbol
EX (also if a taxon is locally extinct)
Black
CR‒PE
Dark purple
CR
Red
EN
Orange
VU
Yellow
NT
Mustard
DD
Lilac
LC (rare categories)
Blue
LC
Green
Type locality: As originally stated by the describer.
Taxonomy: Highlighting any relevant taxonomic issues.
Distribution: A description of the taxon’s distribution.
Habitat: A description of the taxon’s habitat.
Vegetation types: The vegetation types where the taxon is found, based on the 2018 vegetation map (SANBI, 2018), for records flagged as both Accepted and Locally Extinct. For those sites where the taxon is locally extinct, the vegetation types are given in parentheses.
Assessment rationale: The assessment rationale provides information which justifies the Red Listing and related categories and criteria.
Change in status from the Southern African Butterfly Conservation Assessment (SABCA): For those taxa where the Red Listing changed from the previous SABCA assessment of 2012 (Mecenero et al., 2013), an evaluation is given of whether or not the change in status is genuine or non-genuine.
Threats: A description of any threats relevant to the taxon.
Conservation measures and research required: Any conservation measures or research required are mentioned here, where relevant.
Relevant literature: Taxon-specific references published since SABCA are listed in this field, where applicable. The key references listed below were perused for all assessments.
An example of citing a specific conservation assessment:
“Woodhall, S.E. 2020. Abantis bicolor. pp. 34–35 In: Mecenero et al. 2020. Outcomes of the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA). Metamorphosis 31(4): 1–160”.
Abbreviations:
AOO: Area of occupancy
CR: Critically Endangered
CR–PE: Critically Endangered – Possibly Extinct
DD: Data Deficient
EN: Endangered
EOO: Extent of occurrence
EX: Extinct
LC: Least Concern
NT: Near Threatened
VU: Vulnerable
RELEVANT LITERATURE
The relevant literature listed below applies to all the conservation assessments. Literature applying only to specific taxa is given after each conservation assessment.
HENNING, G.A., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 2009. South African Red Data Book: butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity Series Pretoria, South African National Biodiversity Institute. 13: 1–158.
IUCN. 2017. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 13. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Download from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf
MECENERO, S., BALL, J.B., EDGE, D.A., HAMER, M.L., HENNING, G.A., KRÜGER, M., PRINGLE, E.L., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & WILLIAMS, M.C. 2013. Conservation Assessment of Butterflies of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: Red List and Atlas. Saftronics (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg & Animal Demography Unit, Cape Town.
PRINGLE, E.L., HENNING, G.A. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 1994. Pennington's Butterflies of southern Africa. 2nd Edition. Cape Town, Struik-Winchester. 1–800, 210 pls.
SANBI. 2018 Beta Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Shapefile) [vector geospatial dataset] 2018. https://bgis.sanbi.org/SpatialDataset/Detail/669 (Accessed on 28 June 2020).
WILLIAMS, M.C. 2019. Afrotropical Butterflies Encyclopaedia. http://www.metamorphosis.org.za/?p=articles&s=atb
WOODHALL, S.E. 2020. Field guide to butterflies of South Africa (2nd Edn). Penguin Books South Africa
Conservation Assessments: Lycaenidae: Erikssonia - Lepidochrysops
No full textIssue consists of one article divided into downloadable PDFs.
This section contains the conservation assessments and Red Listings (all global) of the taxa assessed during the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA) project, ordered alphabetically by family and then by genus, species and subspecies. Details of the methods used can be found in the main article, with each assessment set out as follows:
Taxon scientific name followed by the describer of the taxon and the date.
English and Afrikaans common names.
Name of the assessor/ taxon author.
Red Listing with relevant categories and criteria, as per the IUCN Red Listing protocol (IUCN, 2017).
For those Least Concern taxa which are rare, their rarity category is also given.
Also indicated are those taxa endemic to the South Africa.
Taxon images are arranged with males above and females below (upper side and underside). Specimen label data and photo credits are tabulated on pages 155–160.
Seasonality table: This table shows the months of occurrence of the taxon, starting August and ending July. Each month is divided into quarters. Quarters for which there are Accepted records are highlighted in grey.
Distribution map: The map’s extent is for South Africa. Data points are displayed for Accepted and Locally Extinct records. The following key is used for each data point:
Red List category
Symbol
EX (also if a taxon is locally extinct)
Black
CR‒PE
Dark purple
CR
Red
EN
Orange
VU
Yellow
NT
Mustard
DD
Lilac
LC (rare categories)
Blue
LC
Green
Type locality: As originally stated by the describer.
Taxonomy: Highlighting any relevant taxonomic issues.
Distribution: A description of the taxon’s distribution.
Habitat: A description of the taxon’s habitat.
Vegetation types: The vegetation types where the taxon is found, based on the 2018 vegetation map (SANBI, 2018), for records flagged as both Accepted and Locally Extinct. For those sites where the taxon is locally extinct, the vegetation types are given in parentheses.
Assessment rationale: The assessment rationale provides information which justifies the Red Listing and related categories and criteria.
Change in status from the Southern African Butterfly Conservation Assessment (SABCA): For those taxa where the Red Listing changed from the previous SABCA assessment of 2012 (Mecenero et al., 2013), an evaluation is given of whether or not the change in status is genuine or non-genuine.
Threats: A description of any threats relevant to the taxon.
Conservation measures and research required: Any conservation measures or research required are mentioned here, where relevant.
Relevant literature: Taxon-specific references published since SABCA are listed in this field, where applicable. The key references listed below were perused for all assessments.
An example of citing a specific conservation assessment:
“Woodhall, S.E. 2020. Abantis bicolor. pp. 34–35 In: Mecenero et al. 2020. Outcomes of the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA). Metamorphosis 31(4): 1–160”.
Abbreviations:
AOO: Area of occupancy
CR: Critically Endangered
CR–PE: Critically Endangered – Possibly Extinct
DD: Data Deficient
EN: Endangered
EOO: Extent of occurrence
EX: Extinct
LC: Least Concern
NT: Near Threatened
VU: Vulnerable
RELEVANT LITERATURE
The relevant literature listed below applies to all the conservation assessments. Literature applying only to specific taxa is given after each conservation assessment.
HENNING, G.A., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 2009. South African Red Data Book: butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity Series Pretoria, South African National Biodiversity Institute. 13: 1–158.
IUCN. 2017. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 13. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Download from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf
MECENERO, S., BALL, J.B., EDGE, D.A., HAMER, M.L., HENNING, G.A., KRÜGER, M., PRINGLE, E.L., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & WILLIAMS, M.C. 2013. Conservation Assessment of Butterflies of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: Red List and Atlas. Saftronics (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg & Animal Demography Unit, Cape Town.
PRINGLE, E.L., HENNING, G.A. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 1994. Pennington's Butterflies of southern Africa. 2nd Edition. Cape Town, Struik-Winchester. 1–800, 210 pls.
SANBI. 2018 Beta Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Shapefile) [vector geospatial dataset] 2018. https://bgis.sanbi.org/SpatialDataset/Detail/669 (Accessed on 28 June 2020).
WILLIAMS, M.C. 2019. Afrotropical Butterflies Encyclopaedia. http://www.metamorphosis.org.za/?p=articles&s=atb
WOODHALL, S.E. 2020. Field guide to butterflies of South Africa (2nd Edn). Penguin Books South Africa
Conservation Assessments: Nymphalidae; Papilionidae; Pieridae
No full textIssue consists of one article divided into downloadable PDFs.
This section contains the conservation assessments and Red Listings (all global) of the taxa assessed during the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA) project, ordered alphabetically by family and then by genus, species and subspecies. Details of the methods used can be found in the main article, with each assessment set out as follows:
Taxon scientific name followed by the describer of the taxon and the date.
English and Afrikaans common names.
Name of the assessor/ taxon author.
Red Listing with relevant categories and criteria, as per the IUCN Red Listing protocol (IUCN, 2017).
For those Least Concern taxa which are rare, their rarity category is also given.
Also indicated are those taxa endemic to the South Africa.
Taxon images are arranged with males above and females below (upper side and underside). Specimen label data and photo credits are tabulated on pages 155–160.
Seasonality table: This table shows the months of occurrence of the taxon, starting August and ending July. Each month is divided into quarters. Quarters for which there are Accepted records are highlighted in grey.
Distribution map: The map’s extent is for South Africa. Data points are displayed for Accepted and Locally Extinct records. The following key is used for each data point:
Red List category
Symbol
EX (also if a taxon is locally extinct)
Black
CR‒PE
Dark purple
CR
Red
EN
Orange
VU
Yellow
NT
Mustard
DD
Lilac
LC (rare categories)
Blue
LC
Green
Type locality: As originally stated by the describer.
Taxonomy: Highlighting any relevant taxonomic issues.
Distribution: A description of the taxon’s distribution.
Habitat: A description of the taxon’s habitat.
Vegetation types: The vegetation types where the taxon is found, based on the 2018 vegetation map (SANBI, 2018), for records flagged as both Accepted and Locally Extinct. For those sites where the taxon is locally extinct, the vegetation types are given in parentheses.
Assessment rationale: The assessment rationale provides information which justifies the Red Listing and related categories and criteria.
Change in status from the Southern African Butterfly Conservation Assessment (SABCA): For those taxa where the Red Listing changed from the previous SABCA assessment of 2012 (Mecenero et al., 2013), an evaluation is given of whether or not the change in status is genuine or non-genuine.
Threats: A description of any threats relevant to the taxon.
Conservation measures and research required: Any conservation measures or research required are mentioned here, where relevant.
Relevant literature: Taxon-specific references published since SABCA are listed in this field, where applicable. The key references listed below were perused for all assessments.
An example of citing a specific conservation assessment:
“Woodhall, S.E. 2020. Abantis bicolor. pp. 34–35 In: Mecenero et al. 2020. Outcomes of the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA). Metamorphosis 31(4): 1–160”.
Abbreviations:
AOO: Area of occupancy
CR: Critically Endangered
CR–PE: Critically Endangered – Possibly Extinct
DD: Data Deficient
EN: Endangered
EOO: Extent of occurrence
EX: Extinct
LC: Least Concern
NT: Near Threatened
VU: Vulnerable
RELEVANT LITERATURE
The relevant literature listed below applies to all the conservation assessments. Literature applying only to specific taxa is given after each conservation assessment.
HENNING, G.A., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 2009. South African Red Data Book: butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity Series Pretoria, South African National Biodiversity Institute. 13: 1–158.
IUCN. 2017. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 13. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Download from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf
MECENERO, S., BALL, J.B., EDGE, D.A., HAMER, M.L., HENNING, G.A., KRÜGER, M., PRINGLE, E.L., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & WILLIAMS, M.C. 2013. Conservation Assessment of Butterflies of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: Red List and Atlas. Saftronics (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg & Animal Demography Unit, Cape Town.
PRINGLE, E.L., HENNING, G.A. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 1994. Pennington's Butterflies of southern Africa. 2nd Edition. Cape Town, Struik-Winchester. 1–800, 210 pls.
SANBI. 2018 Beta Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Shapefile) [vector geospatial dataset] 2018. https://bgis.sanbi.org/SpatialDataset/Detail/669 (Accessed on 28 June 2020).
WILLIAMS, M.C. 2019. Afrotropical Butterflies Encyclopaedia. http://www.metamorphosis.org.za/?p=articles&s=atb
WOODHALL, S.E. 2020. Field guide to butterflies of South Africa (2nd Edn). Penguin Books South Africa
Conservation Assessments: Lycaenidae: Orachrysops - Tuxentius
No full textIssue consists of one article divided into downloadable PDFs.
This section contains the conservation assessments and Red Listings (all global) of the taxa assessed during the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA) project, ordered alphabetically by family and then by genus, species and subspecies. Details of the methods used can be found in the main article, with each assessment set out as follows:
Taxon scientific name followed by the describer of the taxon and the date.
English and Afrikaans common names.
Name of the assessor/ taxon author.
Red Listing with relevant categories and criteria, as per the IUCN Red Listing protocol (IUCN, 2017).
For those Least Concern taxa which are rare, their rarity category is also given.
Also indicated are those taxa endemic to the South Africa.
Taxon images are arranged with males above and females below (upper side and underside). Specimen label data and photo credits are tabulated on pages 155–160.
Seasonality table: This table shows the months of occurrence of the taxon, starting August and ending July. Each month is divided into quarters. Quarters for which there are Accepted records are highlighted in grey.
Distribution map: The map’s extent is for South Africa. Data points are displayed for Accepted and Locally Extinct records. The following key is used for each data point:
Red List category
Symbol
EX (also if a taxon is locally extinct)
Black
CR‒PE
Dark purple
CR
Red
EN
Orange
VU
Yellow
NT
Mustard
DD
Lilac
LC (rare categories)
Blue
LC
Green
Type locality: As originally stated by the describer.
Taxonomy: Highlighting any relevant taxonomic issues.
Distribution: A description of the taxon’s distribution.
Habitat: A description of the taxon’s habitat.
Vegetation types: The vegetation types where the taxon is found, based on the 2018 vegetation map (SANBI, 2018), for records flagged as both Accepted and Locally Extinct. For those sites where the taxon is locally extinct, the vegetation types are given in parentheses.
Assessment rationale: The assessment rationale provides information which justifies the Red Listing and related categories and criteria.
Change in status from the Southern African Butterfly Conservation Assessment (SABCA): For those taxa where the Red Listing changed from the previous SABCA assessment of 2012 (Mecenero et al., 2013), an evaluation is given of whether or not the change in status is genuine or non-genuine.
Threats: A description of any threats relevant to the taxon.
Conservation measures and research required: Any conservation measures or research required are mentioned here, where relevant.
Relevant literature: Taxon-specific references published since SABCA are listed in this field, where applicable. The key references listed below were perused for all assessments.
An example of citing a specific conservation assessment:
“Woodhall, S.E. 2020. Abantis bicolor. pp. 34–35 In: Mecenero et al. 2020. Outcomes of the Southern African Lepidoptera Conservation Assessment (SALCA). Metamorphosis 31(4): 1–160”.
Abbreviations:
AOO: Area of occupancy
CR: Critically Endangered
CR–PE: Critically Endangered – Possibly Extinct
DD: Data Deficient
EN: Endangered
EOO: Extent of occurrence
EX: Extinct
LC: Least Concern
NT: Near Threatened
VU: Vulnerable
RELEVANT LITERATURE
The relevant literature listed below applies to all the conservation assessments. Literature applying only to specific taxa is given after each conservation assessment.
HENNING, G.A., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 2009. South African Red Data Book: butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity Series Pretoria, South African National Biodiversity Institute. 13: 1–158.
IUCN. 2017. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 13. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Download from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf
MECENERO, S., BALL, J.B., EDGE, D.A., HAMER, M.L., HENNING, G.A., KRÜGER, M., PRINGLE, E.L., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & WILLIAMS, M.C. 2013. Conservation Assessment of Butterflies of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: Red List and Atlas. Saftronics (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg & Animal Demography Unit, Cape Town.
PRINGLE, E.L., HENNING, G.A. & BALL, J.B. (eds) 1994. Pennington's Butterflies of southern Africa. 2nd Edition. Cape Town, Struik-Winchester. 1–800, 210 pls.
SANBI. 2018 Beta Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Shapefile) [vector geospatial dataset] 2018. https://bgis.sanbi.org/SpatialDataset/Detail/669 (Accessed on 28 June 2020).
WILLIAMS, M.C. 2019. Afrotropical Butterflies Encyclopaedia. http://www.metamorphosis.org.za/?p=articles&s=atb
WOODHALL, S.E. 2020. Field guide to butterflies of South Africa (2nd Edn). Penguin Books South Africa
