6 thoughts on “Karamoja Apalis (Apalis karamojae)”
1. Kamalinga is an old name of Mt. Napak, I would suggest using Mt. Napak as it is the widely known and used name. However I would suggest using the Iriiri area instead of Napak for the current distribution of the species, since we have no records from Napak except the type specimens. We can keep Napak with the historical sites. I agree with (Hall & Moreau, 1962) that the historical records from the mountains, i.e Napak, Kadam and Moroto, are from the surrounding lowland areas as opposed to the mountaneous areas.
2. The following sites for the species are missing Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve, sites in Katakwi District (Magoro, Palam, Ngarium, and Ongongoja), Soroti District (Gweri), Bukedea District (Malera) (Jombela & Onongo, 2023; Nature Uganda, 2018, 2019; Onongo, 2021), J. Onongo in litt. 2025). To that end, I also suggest adding the Area south of Moroto (Tapac Sub- County) as a possibly extant area (see image below). I also think that there are some unsurveyed areas in Kotido and Kaabong Districts where the species could be possibly extant between Matheniko and Kidepo. I have highlighted these with the red crosshatching.
3. Concerning the question, Is it reasonable to assume that this species would decline in line with the loss of acacia shrub?
Yes, it is a reasonable assumption that the species would decline with loss of Whistling-thorn (Vachellia drepanolobium). Recent surveys have recorded the species within wooded grasslands dominated by Whistling-thorn (Jombela & Onongo, 2023; Nature Uganda, 2018, 2019; Onongo, 2021), J. Onongo in litt. 2025), suggesting a strong association.
The number of protected areas within the species range have increased and needs to be highlighted. In the previous assessment, Kidepo Valley NP was listed as the only protected area. Now we also have Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve, Bokora Wildlife Reserve and Matheniko Wildlife Reserve
As is the case for Maasai Apalis, a high proportion of the global range of Karamoja Apalis lies within protected areas. While this might suggest that much of its habitat is reasonably secure, it’s worth noting that the level of threat posed by Big-headed Ants to Whistling Thorn is contingent on the presence of large herbivores (Riginos et al. 2015). Whistling Thorn is more vulnerable to browsing by elephant and giraffe in areas where Big-headed Ants have eliminated Crematogaster ants, which otherwise protect the plant. Hence, ironically, Big-headed Ant invasions could pose a greater threat to the apalis’s habitat within protected areas – where large herbivores are abundant – than on unprotected land, where the latter are increasingly scarce, or absent.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
We thank J. Onongo and P. Shaw for their comments. The distribution description and range map will be corrected accordingly, as will the conservation action part of the assessment to include the additional protected areas, and the threats to highlight the issue with Big-headed Ants in protected areas in particular. Further information received from J. Onongo by email will also be incorporated. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.
1. Kamalinga is an old name of Mt. Napak, I would suggest using Mt. Napak as it is the widely known and used name. However I would suggest using the Iriiri area instead of Napak for the current distribution of the species, since we have no records from Napak except the type specimens. We can keep Napak with the historical sites. I agree with (Hall & Moreau, 1962) that the historical records from the mountains, i.e Napak, Kadam and Moroto, are from the surrounding lowland areas as opposed to the mountaneous areas.
2. The following sites for the species are missing Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve, sites in Katakwi District (Magoro, Palam, Ngarium, and Ongongoja), Soroti District (Gweri), Bukedea District (Malera) (Jombela & Onongo, 2023; Nature Uganda, 2018, 2019; Onongo, 2021), J. Onongo in litt. 2025). To that end, I also suggest adding the Area south of Moroto (Tapac Sub- County) as a possibly extant area (see image below). I also think that there are some unsurveyed areas in Kotido and Kaabong Districts where the species could be possibly extant between Matheniko and Kidepo. I have highlighted these with the red crosshatching.
3. Concerning the question, Is it reasonable to assume that this species would decline in line with the loss of acacia shrub?
Yes, it is a reasonable assumption that the species would decline with loss of Whistling-thorn (Vachellia drepanolobium). Recent surveys have recorded the species within wooded grasslands dominated by Whistling-thorn (Jombela & Onongo, 2023; Nature Uganda, 2018, 2019; Onongo, 2021), J. Onongo in litt. 2025), suggesting a strong association.
References
Hall, B. P., & Moreau, R. E. (1962). A Study of the Rare Birds of Africa. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology, 8, 313–378.
Jombela, S., & Onongo, J. (2023). A report on the survey of the Karamoja Apalis in North-eastern Uganda. https://www.africanbirdclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/A-Survey-of-the-Karamoja-Apalis-in-North-eastern-Uganda-Jombela-Salmah.pdf
Nature Uganda. (2018). Fox’s Weaver Survey Report. East Africa Natural History Society. https://natureuganda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Foxs-Weaver-Survey-Report-2018.pdf
Nature Uganda. (2019). Fox’s Weaver Survey Report. East Africa Natural History Society. https://natureuganda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Foxs-Weaver-Survey-Report-2019.pdf
Onongo, J. (2021). Fox’s Weaver Survey Report. https://www.africanbirdclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2020-Foxs-Weaver-Survey-Uganda-Jonathan-Onongo.pdf
The number of protected areas within the species range have increased and needs to be highlighted. In the previous assessment, Kidepo Valley NP was listed as the only protected area. Now we also have Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve, Bokora Wildlife Reserve and Matheniko Wildlife Reserve
As is the case for Maasai Apalis, a high proportion of the global range of Karamoja Apalis lies within protected areas. While this might suggest that much of its habitat is reasonably secure, it’s worth noting that the level of threat posed by Big-headed Ants to Whistling Thorn is contingent on the presence of large herbivores (Riginos et al. 2015). Whistling Thorn is more vulnerable to browsing by elephant and giraffe in areas where Big-headed Ants have eliminated Crematogaster ants, which otherwise protect the plant. Hence, ironically, Big-headed Ant invasions could pose a greater threat to the apalis’s habitat within protected areas – where large herbivores are abundant – than on unprotected land, where the latter are increasingly scarce, or absent.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank J. Onongo and P. Shaw for their comments. The distribution description and range map will be corrected accordingly, as will the conservation action part of the assessment to include the additional protected areas, and the threats to highlight the issue with Big-headed Ants in protected areas in particular. Further information received from J. Onongo by email will also be incorporated. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.