Showing posts with label East Africa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label East Africa. Show all posts

Saturday, 8 August 2026

Sixteen Elephants dead in series of poisoning incidents in Amboseli National Park, Kenya.

Sixteen Elephants have been found dead with apparent cyanide poisoning in the Amboseli National Park in Kenya since 24 June 2026. This has raised concerns about a potential new wave of Human-wildlife conflict in the park, where Elephants were once almost wiped out by poaching, but which is now home to a population of 36 000. All of the Elephants died outside of the Amboseli National Park itself, but within the greater Amoseli ecosystem, in the area around Kimana Sanctuary and Kuku Ranch, community-run wildlife projects linking Amboseli National Park to the Tsavo National Park to the east.

The body of an Elephant found close to the Amboseli National Park in Kenya earlier this year. BBC.

Initially, park authorities were concerned that the Elephants may have been poisoned by a cyanide-based insecticide sprayed on crops on one of the farms surrounding the park, as several of the dead Elephants had stomachs filled with tomatoes. Elephant raids on croplands close to Amboseli are a known problem, and while cyanide-based insecticides are illegal in Kenya (which maintains strict rules on the use of agricultural chemicals in order to gain access to lucrative European markets), they are legal in neighbouring Tanzania, with occasional incidents of smuggling and illegal use in Kenya being reported. 

Elephants in the Amboseli National Park. Kenya Wildlife Service.

However, local farmer's representatives have strongly denied this, claiming that despite the problems of crop raiding, most farmers love the region's Elephants and would not voluntarily harm them. Furthermore, they note that that it would take a considerable amount of cyanide to kill an Elephant, and farms are also impacted by crop raiding by other large Mammals, none of which seem to have been affected.

Farmers spraying pesticides on a farm close to the Amboseli National Park in Kenya. Peter Njoroge/BBC.

Another possibility is that the cyanide could have been used in an illegal gold mining operation either within, or close to the Amboseli National Park (while gold is not generally soluble, it can be dissolved in solutions of sodium cyanide, a method which can be used to leach gold from ore rock), although the Kenya Wildlife Service are confident that no such activities are taking place. This makes deliberate poisoning of the Elephants the most probable cause, and while the reason for this is unknown, the most likely explanation would be that it relates to the extensive farmland now surrounding Amboseli and the other parks of the region, which supply vegetables to cities such as Nairobi as well as overseas markets. While many Animals occasionally raid such farms, Elephants are uniquely destructive, with individual Elephants able to consume over a tonne of vegetables within a short period of time.

See also...

Tuesday, 28 July 2026

UNESCO adds three new sites to its World Heritage List.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has added seven new sites to its World Heritage List, which is made up of sites deemed to be of natural or cultural significance which gives them outstanding universal significance for mankind, according to a press release issued on 26 July 2026. All three of these sites have additionally been placed on the World Heritage in Danger list of sites which are facing imminent threats due to Human or natural causes. In addition, three sites already on the World Heritage List have also been placed on the World Heritage in Danger list.

The first new site added to the World Heritage List is the Boma-Badingilo Migratory Landscape in South Sudan; this is the first site in South Sudan to be added to the World Heritage List. This area comprises two National Parks, Boma and Badingilo, which are contiguous with one another, currently managed by African Parks on behalf of the South Sudanese government. The parks lie in the White Nile catchment area, and are home to the world's largest Mammal migration, with over six million Antelope trasversing the area each year, as well as being an important part of the migrant Bird route between Southern Africa and Europe. The area is a biodiversity hotspot of global significance, as well as being home to a number of ethnic groups with their own unique cultural and linguistic heritage, who have acted as custodians of this landscape.

An Antelope migration in the Boma-Badingilo Migratory Landscape. African Parks.

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has identified the Boma-Badingilo Migratory Landscape as facing a number of serious threats, including infrastructure development, commercial poaching, and wildlife trafficking and trade, while at the same time lacks meaningful protection from the South Sudanese government, which is under-financed and has a weak infrastructure, with the country suffering from a poor security situation. For these reasons the Boma-Badingilo Migratory Landscape has been placed on the World Heritage in Danger list.

Traditional herders within the Boma-Badingilo Migratory Landscape. African Parks.

The second new addition to the World Heritage List is the Mount Amel Castles sites in Lebanon. This site compromises a series of five castles across southern Lebanon, built during the Crusader Period on strategic high ground sites, and subsequently used by the Ayyubids, Mamluks, and later powers. These are Qalaat al-Chakif, or Beaufort Castle, dominating the Litani River valley from a strategic ridge, Qalaat Tibnin, or Toron Castle, on a mountain overlooking the road from Tyre to Damascus, Qalaat Chakra, or Dubieh Castle, in the Chakra agricultural region, Qalaat Deir Kifa, or Maron Castle, on an isolated hill overlooking the route from Lebanon towards Galilee and Jerusalem, and Qalaat Chama’, on a hill overlooking the coastal plain near Tyre.

Qalaat Tibnin, or Toron Castle, in 2006. T Dakroub/Wikimedia Commons.

In November 2024 the Mount Amel Castles were given 'enhanced protection status by the UNESCO Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, a status which grants access to the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, as well helping to make applications for other forms of international assistance. However, since that time the sites have suffered heavy damage due to the ongoing conflict in the region, and are now considered to be in jeopardy of complete destruction, prompting the World Heritage Committee to move the sites to both the World Heritage List and the World Heritage in Danger list as a way to highlight the risk of losing these sites.

Qalaat al-Chakif, or Beaufort Castle. UNESCO.

The third new site added to the World Heritage List is the Palestinian village of Sebastia in the Nablus Governate of the State of Palestine. This is a site of significant archaeological heritage, having been inhabited since at least the ninth century BC, when it served as the capital of the northern Kingdom of Israel, and has since been occupied by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Hellenistic Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks, and Ottomans. The village was the site of a fortified town associated with Herod the Great during the Roman period, and  was a Throne Village (administrative centre governed by local leaders) during the Ottoman period. It is considered to be the burial place of St John the Baptist.

A Roman theatre in the Palestinian village of Sebastia. Wikimedia Commons.

The site has been chosen for inclusion on the World Heritage List and the World Heritage in Danger list both because it is threatened by the ongoing conflict in the region, and also because it is threatened with expropriation, with half the site, including many privately owned propertied, earmarked to become part of the proposed Shomron National Park, a development which would allow access to the site only from Israel, excluding many Palestinians who have worked as traditional guides at the site. This project sits alongside plans for the expansion of Jewish settlements in the region, again almost certainly at the detriment of the local Palestinian population.

Roman ruins on the hilltop site near Sebastia. Jason Burke/The Guardian.

The first site already on the World Heritage List which is being additionally added to the World Heritage in Danger list is the Tauric Chersonese, an ancient city on the Crimean Peninsula founded by Ionian Greeks in the sixth century BC, and subsequently occupied by Megarian Greeks, the Pontic Empire, the Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire, before being abandoned in the fourteenth century. Although Crimea is part of Ukraine, it has been occupied by Russia since 2014, with no apparent plan for its protection, conservation, or management. The site is currently monitored remotely by UNITAR/UNOSAT, which has revealed significant degradation of the site, due to construction and large-scale excavation at the site. The World Heritage Committee believes there is a significant danger of the illicit trafficking of cultural property from the Crimea.

The ruins of Chersonesos, Crimea, in 2009. Dmitry Mottl/Wikimedia Commons.

The second site from the World Heritage List added to the World Heritage in Danger list is the Historic Inner City of Paramaribo in Suriname, a former Dutch colonial town from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries planted on the northern coast of tropical South America. At the moment, original and highly characteristic street plan of the historic centre remains intact, with buildings that illustrate the gradual fusion of Dutch architectural influence with traditional local techniques and materials. However, the World Heritage Committee feels that the new National Assembly hall and the Yogh parking garage detract from the property’s historic urban landscape and result in a significant loss of its authenticity and integrity, that constitute a threat to the site's outstanding universal value.

Houses in the Historic Inner City of Paramaribo in Suriname. Ron Van Oers/UNESCO.

The final site to be added to the World Heritage in Danger list is the city of Tyre in Lebanon. This site has been occupied since the Bronze Age, but rose to prominence as a major Phoenician city-state between ninth and sixth centuries BC, and was subsequently occupied by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Hellenic Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Early Muslims, Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans, Egyptians, and French, prior to Lebanon gaining independence in 1943. As such, the city is home to numerous archaeological sites of great significance, with those of the Roman Period being particularly spectacular. 

Roman ruins at Tyre on the coast of Lebanon. VĂ©ronique Dauge/UNESCO.

Like the Mount Amel Castles, the city of Tyre is threatened by the ongoing conflict in southern Lebanon, and while the World Heritage Committee commends Lebanon for its efforts to protect Tyre, they also feel that the historic sites are now directly threatened by the conflict.

See also...

Wednesday, 3 June 2026

Observing Animal and Human interactions around a Marburg Virus-infected Bat colony.

Zoonotic infections, diseases which spread from an Animal host into a Human population, are a serious threat to public health, in some cases being the source of pandemics which kill millions of people around the globe, such as the Influenza and Covid Viruses and the medieval Plague outbreaks. Filoviruses, such as the Bundibugyo, Ebola, Marburg, and Sudan Viruses, can cause outbreaks of hemorrhagic fever which kill hundreds or even thousands of people in tropical Africa, after jumping from a natural host, usually a Fruit Bat. The Bats themselves seem to suffer little harm from infection with these Viruses, but Humans and other Animals often succumb very rapidly. 

Since the nature of the wild host of these Viruses became apparent, public health campaigns in many countries have tried to minimise the extent to which people interact with Fruit Bats, but the often remote nature of the communities most at risk, combined with the ability of the Virus to jump from Bats into a variety of other hosts before infecting Humans, has limited the effectiveness of these, underlining the need to better understand the nature of interactions between Fruit Bats, Humans, and other Animals.

In a letter published in the journal Current Biology on 20 April 2026, Bosco Atukwatse, Orin Cornille, Johnson Muhereza, Winfred Nsabimana, and Yahaya Ssemakula of the Kyambura Lion Project of the Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust, Eric Enyel of the Uganda Wildlife Authority, Charlie Gould of the School of Biological Science at the University of Edinburgh, Arjun Gopalaswamy of Carnassials Global, and Alexander Braczkowski, also of the Kyambura Lion Project of the Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust, present the results of an study in which camera traps were deployed at Python Cave in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, the dwelling place of a colony of  Egyptian Rousette Bats, Rousettus aegyptiacus, known to act as a reserve for Marburg Virus.

The camera traps were deployed as part of a carnivore-monitoring program in Queen Elizabeth National Park between 16 February and 23 June 2025, with a total of 8832 hours of filming producing evidence of at least 14 species of Animal visiting the size, including Carnivores, Primates, Raptors, and Reptiles. The most common visitors to the cave were Nile monitors, Varanus niloticus, (72 visits), Large Spotted Genets, Genetta tigrina, (69 visits), and Palm-nut Vultures, Gypohierax angolensis, (35 visits). The cave was visited twice by Olive Baboons, Papio anubis, and ten times by Blue Monkeys, Cercopithecus mitis, which were seen actively preying on Bats. African Fish Eagles, Icthyophaga vocifer, made 33 visits to the cave, Black Sparrowhawks, Astur melanoleucus, made 19 visits, Crowned Eagles, Stephanoaetus coronatus, made 17 visits, and Verreaux’s Eagle-owls, Bubo lacteus, made six visits. Seventeen Leopard visits were directly recorded, but parts of a cycle in which the same Leopard repeatedly entered the cave, captured Bats, and exited with them were recorded, leading the team to conclude at least 43 such hunts took place during the study time. A total of 63 incidents of hunting or scavenging Bats by different species were recorded, with a further 258 incidents of Animals entering the caves for less clear reasons.

 Multi-species predation and scavenging at a Marburg Virus Bat reservoir. The distribution of detections per species across 368 trap nights at Python Cave recorded using  6 remote, solar-powered camera traps. Blue indicates predation and scavenging events, whereas  orange represents detections where cave exploration, entry, exit, or resting was observed. Atukwatse et al. (2026).

More alarmingly, over the course of the study Atukwatse et al. also observed 214 individual Humans approaching the cave. These came in 22 different groups, including school groups, researchers, and tourists, many of whom came within meters of the cave entrance (a direct contradiction of park regulations), bypassing a designated observation platform 30 m from the entrance. Only one person, a tourist, was observed to wear a mask when approaching the cave.

Atukwatse et al. do not suggest that these observations represent evidence of Virus transmission, but rather a direct record of ecological interactions at a potential spillover site. This included direct predation of potentially-infected Bats during repeated visits to the cave, and provide direct evidence of the predator-guild targeting Bats in this setting. 

A collage of hunting and foraging by a variety of species. Insets show confirmed prey contact and feeding events. (i) An African Leopard, Panthera pardus, with its Bat prey emerging from the cave interior. (ii) A Crowned Eagle, Stephanoaetus coronatus, with its Bat prey. (iii) A Blue Monkey, Cercopithecus mitis, holding a Bat in its left hand. (iv) A Melanistic Genet, Genetta victoriae, with Bat prey. (v) A Nile Monitor, Varanus niloticus, approaching and then consuming a fallen Bat. (vi) An interspecific interaction (likely a fight) between a Crowned Eagle and a Nile Monitor over two Bats captured by the Eagle. (vii) An African Civet, Civettictis civetta, scavenging on Bat remains. (viii) A Palm-nut Vulture, Gypohierax angolensis, scavenging a Bat carcass. (ix) A group of Olive Baboons, Papio anubis, at the cave mouth, possibly foraging on Bat guano. Atukwatse et al. (2026).

Unlike other famous tropical Bat roosts within caves, such as Kitaka Mine in Uganda, Kitum Cave in Kenya, Goroumbwa Mine in Democratic Republic of Congo, or Macaregua Cave in Colombia, Python Cave lacks a vertical space separating the Bats from ground-based predators. Parts of the cave roof have collapsed, and the cave is partly filled with large volumes of guano, providing predators a way of directly reaching the Bats where they roost. This it turn provides an easy opportunity for any Virus present in the Bat community to spread to other wildlife within the cave. Atukwatse et al. observed instances of bats falling from the overcrowded roof of the cave, then having to crawl over the floor, presenting another tempting target for both terrestrial and airborne predators.

First ever large scale predation by at least 14 species on Egyptian Fruit Bats (a known Marburg Filovirus reservoir) in Python Cave Uganda. The trail cameras were placed at the cave as part of the Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust Kyambura Lion Project's long term Leopard and Hyena monitoring work in Queen Elizabeth National Park. Alex Braczkowski/YouTube.

The presence of piles of Bat bones and frequent and repeated visits to the caves by a variety of predators indicates that the site has become a prime feeding site for both predators and scavenges, and that to some extent the richness of the resource has led to a relaxation of normal inter-species hostilities, with, for example, Fish Eagles feeding alongside Vultures, Nile Monitors feeding alongside Pythons, and even a Genet and Python seen together. This implies a loss of territoriality and aggression only seen at the most abundant food sites, although on one occasion  Atukwatse et al. did observe a Crowned Eagle and a Nile Monitor squabbling over a Bat.

These interactions are all the more remarkable in that they are occurring at a site with a frequent Human presence, something which many Animals avoid where possible. The Uganda Wildlife Authority has placed an observation platform about 30 m from the entrance to Python Cave, with the specific intention of limiting Human exposure to Marburg Virus-infected Bats, but despite this Atukwatse et al.'s camera traps recorded Tourists, students from a nearby wildlife training institute, and even school trips approaching the cave mouth without any form of protection. It is particularly concerning that this was happening during the Bat's birthing season, when they are known to shed the Virus at a higher rate. Atukwatse et al. recognise that Bat-viewing is a valuable contribution to the nation's ecotourism income, but nevertheless recommend that the Uganda Wildlife Authority imposes stricter regulation on the site, with mandates for protective gear, enforced distancing, and locally trained guides to serve as sentinels for biosurveillance and education.

It has generally been assumed that the spillover events which lead to outbreaks of Marburg Virus Disease, and other zoonotic infections, occur in locations effectively beyond the observation of science. Atukwatse et al.'s results refute this, providing an example of a site where Marburg-infected Bats are interacting with a variety of other Animals, which is also integrated into the local tourist industry. Some of the species observed, such as Blue Monkeys, have previously been associated with Marburg Virus, and are commonly hunted and consumed by Humans as bushmeat. The consumption of Bats by these Monkeys presents a new route by which Marburg Virus could make its way from the wild Bat reserve into Human populations. Atukwatse et al. recommend that serological surveys are carried out of both the predators seen frequenting Python Cave, and of park rangers who regularly enter the site, in order to assess potential exposure to Marburg or other Filoviruses. This, combined with enhanced surveillance of Python Cave and other similar sites, could enable the development of a new dataset to complement the genomic tools already being developed.

See also...

Tuesday, 14 April 2026

Lethal conflict during the fission of a Chimpanzee group in Kibale National Park, Uganda.

Warfare, and other forms of collective violence, are one of the more distinctive, if less pleasant, forms of Human behaviour. In these acts, Humans are able to sort themselves into groups defined by traits other than kinship, such as ethnicity, religion, language, or other cultural traits, in order to engage in conflict against other groups of Humans. It has been proposed that this is a result of our ability to use cultural traits to define cohesive social groups, giving us a distinct sense of who is 'us' and who is 'them', enabling closer cooperation with members of our group, while at the same time maintaining a hostility to outsiders. 

However, this cannot explain how conflict can erupt within formerly cohesive groups, leading to rebellions and civil wars. This has been explained by suggesting that shifting interpersonal ties and rivalries can sometimes reach a point where internal hostilities overcome the cohesion of the group, regardless of the cultural connections which have been built up. This hypothesis has some evidential support, with observations suggesting that Humans can rapidly come to regard former members of an in-group as members of an out-group for the most arbitrary of reasons. 

Non-Human Animals also engage in territorial aggression, and sometimes lethal conflict with cospecifics, despite not having the religious, cultural, or political ideologies seen in Humans. This has been observed in a variety of Animals, including Banded Mongooses, Lions, Wolves, and Primates. Non-Human Animals living in social groups also have episodes of fission, in which one group splits permanently into two or more, something which is often explained in terms of feeding competition and social pressures, although most Animal groups do not engage in lethal combat during such fission episodes.

Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, are among our closest relatives, and in some ways can be seen as a bridge over the gap between Human and non-Human behaviour. Male Chimpanzees stay within the group they were born in, and engage in cooperative defence of the group's territory, as well as raids on the territories of neighbouring groups. Lethal violence between males of different groups is quite common during both of these activities. This can be explained in terms of hostility towards outsiders, while remaining loyal to members of the kin group. Chimpanzee groups are known to occasionally split, a process which is thought to involve lethal violence between males familiar with one-another.

In the 1970s, a group of Chimpanzees living in the Gombe National Park in Tanzania was thought to split in two, with the males of one of the new groups subsequently killing one of the adult females and all six adult males in the other group over a period of about four years. However, this group was not under constant observation, so that much of this activity is inferred rather than having been directly witnessed, and no subsequent observations of similar splits in Chimpanzee groups were recorded in the following decades. Furthermore, a study published in 2014 which looked at the genetic structure of Chimpanzee groups suggested that such ruptures were extremely uncommon, with groups splitting on average once every 500 years.

In a paper published in the journal Science on 9 April 2026, a group of scientists led by Aaron Sandel of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin, present a detailed and extensively documented study of a fission event which split a group of Chimpanzees living in the Kibale National Park in Uganda, and the lethal violence associated with this split.

Sandel et al. analysed 24 years of data on the social interactions of the group, ten years of GPS data, and 30 years of demographic data on the Ngogo Chimpanzee Group, which demonstrated a three step process, in which a formerly cohesive group polarised into two clusters with little social interaction between these clusters, these clusters then actively avoided one-another for two years, before engaging in a series of lethal aggressive actions. Sandel et al. take this as evidence that Chimpanzee groups can fracture and engage in collective violence against members of the same community without any of the cultural markers seen in Humans.

The Ngogo Chimpanzees have been the subject of a continuous research project since 1995. For the first two decades of the study, they remained a single group, although they did go through a regular fission-fusion dynamic in which the larger group split into parties which changed throughout the day, though individuals frequently moved between parties and all remained within the overall territory; this is something commonly seen in Chimpanzee groups. Females typically migrated from (or to) the group at adolescence, while males born into the group remained there for life. The males formed a strict dominance hierarchy, associated in mixed-sex parties, hunted together, and cooperated in territorial patrols.

Each adult male in the group was followed for 2-3 months each year between 1998 and 2024 to see which other individuals they associated with, stayed close to, and engaged in grooming with. Despite being a single group, the Ngogo Chimpanzees typically split into two-to-four clusters over the course of a year, with two persistent and long-lived clusters, the Western and Central clusters. Membership of these clusters was fluid, with 29% of Chimpanzees switching cluster each year, and extensive ties maintained between Chimpanzees in different clusters. 

As well as clusters, Sandel et al. identified a number of 'cliques' of males that consistently stayed together, even when switching clusters. One of these cliques comprised a group of three males that would go on to form the core of the post-fission Western Group. These three males remained together consistently, even when forming clusters with males that would go on to be in the post-fission Central Group. A cluster comprising exclusively males that would go on to form the post-fission Western Group first appeared in 2014.

In 2015, Ngogo Chimpanzees at the edge of their territory hear calls from neighbouring Chimpanzees; adult males embrace each other in an act of reassurance before moving toward the calls and engaging in an intergroup encounter. 'C' and 'W' designations refer to males who would later become members of the Central and Western groups, respectively. Sandal et al. (2026).

Despite the different social clusters, all of the Ngogo Chimpanzees, including all of the males, had overlapping space use patterns, and all males shared the same set of reproductive partners. All Chimpanzees born within the Ngogo Group between 2004 and 2014 that it was possible to genetically sample had both parents from within the group, though 44% had parents from two different clusters. 

The first sign of a split between the clusters was observed on 24 June 2015, when members of the Western and Central clusters were seen to approach one-another near the centre of the territory. Unexpectedly, rather than the two groups merging as usually happened on such occasions, the Chimpanzees of the Western Cluster ran away, with the Chimpanzees of the Central Cluster chasing them. The two clusters then avoided one-another for six weeks, something which had never been observed before.

The events of 2015 precipitated the greatest change of social change seen throughout the decades-long study of the group. What had been a single large group of Chimpanzees split into a number of smaller units, stabilising as two new groups by 2018.

The first patrol by one group against another happened in 2016, when males of the Western Group, accompanied by two of the Central Group males, staged a patrol against the Central Group. All subsequent patrols by the Western males contained only members of that group. In 2017, the Central Group males staged their first patrol against the Western Group, with aggressive interactions between the two groups escalating rapidly from that point. During one encounter in 2017 the males of the Western Cluster attacked the alpha male of the Central Cluster (who had been part of the Western Cluster before 2014), severely injuring him. Both groups subsequently increased the number of patrols against the other group.

By 2017 the two groups were using largely distinct territories, with the overlap between the two groups being similar in size to that seen between unrelated groups. The centre of the shared territory had become a border. This was accompanied by reproductive isolation between the two emerging groups, with the last infant with parents from different groups being conceived in March 2015. All subsequent births had both parents from the same new group.

By 2018, the original group appeared to have split into two new groups, entirely separated from one another. At this time the Western Group included 10 males and 22 females over the age of 12, and the Central Group comprised 30 males and 39 females over the age of 12. Until 2018, a few of the females and infants from the Central Group would occasionally join the Western Group when foraging from Fig trees. After 2018 all such activity ceased.

Following this complete split, the Western Group initiated a series of lethal attacks against members of the Central Group. On all occasions members of the Central Group were attacked by multiple members of the Western Group, during a patrol by members of the Western Group into the territory of the Central Group. Six lethal attacks on males belonging to the Central Group were observed between 2018 and 2024, with a seventh attributed with a high degree of confidence. From 2021 these attacks were also carried out on infants from the Central group, with fourteen infanticides observed, and another three inferred. 

Sandal et al. note that this is a conservative estimate. Between 2021 and 2024 another 14 adult and adolescent males from the Central Group disappeared, and are thought likely to have been killed. None of these individuals showed signs of any illness when they were last observed.

In 2019, the Western Chimpanzees, including W1, W2, and W3, attack and kill the adult male Central Chimpanzee C1, who they had associated with before the fission, marking a notable shift in relationships. Sandal et al. (2026).

By using decades of data gathered on the Ngogo Chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Sandel et al. have been able to demonstrate the occurrence of a fission event within a wild group of Chimpanzees, something predicted to happen only once every 500 years. This was followed by a series of lethal aggressive interactions, with targeted violence continuing years after the split, something not observed in any other non-Human Primate. The rate at which killings occurred was far higher than that seen in small Human societies. This demonstrates that Chimpanzees can develop new group boundaries and defend them violently, despite not having any concept of ethnicity, religion, or political ideology.

Sandal et al. speculate that a number of factors might have contributed towards the division of the Ngogo Chimpanzee Group. Firstly, the group was unusually large, with almost 200 individuals, and almost 30 males, much larger than other known Chimpanzee groups, which may have strained the males ability to maintain good relations with all other members of the group. Secondly, feeding competition has been shown to play a role in group fission in other Primate species. The area occupied by the Ngogo Group had abundant food, but the large size of the group may have caused strain at some times of the year. Thirdly, the two groups became reproductively isolated before finally separating into two groups, something which may have increased male-male aggression as they had to compete for a smaller number of mates.

Other factors which may have played a role are also observed by Sandal et al.. Firstly, six adult members of the group, five males and a female, died in 2014. The cause of these deaths is unknown, but two showed signs of illness before their deaths, making it possible that the group was hit by a disease. The loss of more than 10% of the male Chimpanzees in the group may have weakened the groups network of social relationships, leading to the group beginning to break up in 2015. 

Next, the dominant male in the group changed in 2015, immediately before the fission of the group. Such changeovers are known to raise tensions among male Chimpanzees, leading to increases in behaviours such as aggression and avoidance. The former dominant male belonged to the Central Group, whereas the new dominant male came from the Western Group, but moved to the Central Group when he ascended to the top of the hierarchy, which Sandal et al. suspect may have increased tensions between the two groups.

Finally, in January 2017, the group was hit by a respiratory epidemic which killed 25 Chimpanzees, including four adult males and ten adult females. Two of the males that died were from the Western Group, including one of the last males in that group to be maintaining relations with the Central Group. Thus, even though this event happened after the groups had started to split, it may have contributed to the final breakdown in relations between the two. 

Chimpanzees are known to have a strong sense of who is in their group, and who is not. Female Chimpanzees leave the group they were born into as adolescents and look for a new group to join, but males remain in the group they were born into their entire lives. Thus any unfamiliar male Chimpanzee is treated as a stranger, with no recorded instances of wild male Chimpanzees forming relationships or cooperating with Chimpanzees in other groups. Under these circumstances, intense hostility towards outside males appears to be an adaptive trait in male Chimpanzees, leading to potential territorial extensions for the group, which in turn leads to more food and other resources, increased female fertility, and a greater survival rate among juveniles. 

This cannot, however, explain the lethal aggression sometimes displayed to members, or former members, of the same group. During the fission of the Ngogo Group, males which had lived, fed, groomed, and patrolled together for years became targets of lethal attacks on the basis of their new group membership. This leads Sandal et al. to conclude that Chimpanzees have a sense of who belongs to their group which is based upon more than simple familiarity, and which can be updated to reflect changes in circumstances.

These results challenge previous assumptions about intergroup conflict in Chimpanzees in a number of ways. All observed attacks were initiated by the numerically smaller Western Group, which contradicts the assumption that larger groups have an advantage in such conflicts. The emergence of greater social cohesion in the smaller group appears to have given them an advantage in conflict which more than made up for the greater numbers of their opponents. These closer bonds appear to have developed before the onset of aggressive activity, suggesting that an external threat is not needed to forge these bonds. Conversely, the original Ngogo Group underwent a territorial expansion in 2009, which appears to have reduced the threat that it faced from rival groups, something which may have contributed to the long-term decline in social cohesion within the group. If this is the case, than an external threat may not be needed to forge close bonds, but it may be needed to maintain them.

Sandal et al.'s findings also have implications for Human behaviour. If Chimpanzee groups can split in this way without any of the cultural markers associated with Human conflict, then these may be less important to Humans than we generally assume, masking the actual roots of aggression, which may have more to do with interpersonal relationships. Humans tend to attribute the conflict to ethnic, religious, or political divisions, but this may be misleading, covering the actual causes of conflict. If this is the case, then  it may be in the small, daily acts of reconciliation and reunion between individuals that we find opportunities for peace.

See also...