INVERTEBRATE STUDY FOR PORTION 62 OF THE FARM

WITPOORTJIE 177-IR, GAUTENG PROVINCE

by

V.C. VAN DER MERWE BSc Entomology, MSc Conservation Biology

Commisioned by Envirogaurd

December 2018

V.C. VAN DER MERWE EMAIL: vincheetah@gmail.com

P.O.BOX 72 CELL: 074 166 0410
HAENERTSBURG 12 DECEMBER 2018
0730
LIMPOPO, SOUTH AFRICA

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

1
To Envirogaurd

INVERTEBRATE STUDY FOR PORTION 62 OF THE FARM WITPOORTJIE 177-IR,

GAUTENG PROVINCE

We have the pleasure in submitting herewith our report as requested and as per your
th
correspondence and appointment dated 11 November 2018. This study has been carried out
in accordance with the provisions of Regulations gazetted in the Government Notice No R1183
of 6/9/1997 for the Department of Nature Conservation, of Gauteng Province, and also DEAT
(2005) Guideline 3: General Guide to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations,
2005, Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series, Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.

The aim of this report was to provide the client with a description of potential status of Red Data
Invertebrate species and habitat that could be potentially suitable for the presence of these
species on Portion 62 of the Farm Witpoortjie 177-IR.

A concerted effort was made to locate four invertebrate species of conservation concern,
including three butterfly species (Lepidochrysops praeterita, Chrysoritis aureus and Aloeides
dentatis) and one cetonid beetle (Ichnestoma stobbiai). These species were not observed
during the survey. The vast majority of the site consists of open grasslands and old fields that
has been heavily invaded by anthropogenic, pioneer and exotic plant species. These areas are
totally transformed and no natural vegetation remains. Three seasonally inundated depressions
on the eastern portion of the site constitute the only sensitive habitat in the survey area.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

2
 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………… 2
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….. 4
STUDY AREA……………………………………………………….. 6
MATERIALS & METHODS………………………………………… 12
RESULTS…………………………………………………………….. 14
DISCUSSION………………………………………………...………. 20
RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………….. 23
REFERENCES………………………………………………………. 26

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

3
 INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms on earth, including the variability within
and between species and within and between ecosystems. The biodiversity of Gauteng is
under constant threat from human settlement and societal development. Natural land is
degraded and transformed by the rapid expansion of human settlements, such as residential
areas, mines, manufacturing plants, transport and agriculture, that have an ever-increasing
demand for space. The loss, fragmentation and degradation of natural habitat through
urbanisation and an increase in human population numbers, represent the greatest threats to
rare and endangered invertebrate species in Gauteng.

Sustainable development is an evolving concept, which is continually being redefined and

reinterpreted and should form the basis of the planning processes of new developments.
Reducing the burden of environmental impacts is necessary if development is to become
sustainable. The process of planning new developments should be based on scientific,
ecological principles and used as a planning tool to promote sustainable development by
integrating environmental considerations into a wide range of proposed actions. Development
planning must be intended to ensure that development proposals do not undermine critical
resource and ecological functions, by improving the way these environmental resources are
utilised, or the well being, lifestyle and livelihood of the communities and peoples who depend
on them.

Invertebrates dominate terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, with insects being the most
speciose class, comprising more than 75% of all known species in the Animal Kingdom. Insects
and arachnids form part of the diverse and essential natural processes that sustain biological
systems. The insect-plant interaction is the most common biotic interaction on Earth, and
indeed, our present ecosystems would not function without these invertebrates. The worldwide
Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.redlist.org/info/tables/table1) contains
approximately 560 insects. This is a meagre 7% of the faunal list, which when one consider that
insects make up over 70% of the worlds fauna, is tremendously negatively biased. In a study
carried out by Black and Vaughn (2003), it was noted that of the world’s insects, very few
groups have been assessed on a worldwide scale. Approximately 10% of Swallowtail
butterflies, for example, are considered globally threatened. Based on a mathematical model,
McKinney (2003), predicted that 10% of all butterflies were threatened contrasting to the 1%
currently listed. At National levels, figures between 10% and 34% are given for the number of
threatened indigenous insect species, suggesting that the overall number of threatened insects
could be in excess of 100, 000. Globally countries such as Australia, France, Spain, the United

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

4
States and South Africa have among the highest numbers of threatened invertebrates. This is
however, more a reflection of the effort made by these countries to assess their biodiversity and
hence distinguish those that are threatened rather than a true overall indication.

Insects have an enormous functional value because of the numerous individuals and the great
intra- and interspecific variety. The ecological importance of this great variety of insects makes
them valuable to assess disturbances or environmental impacts. A sound knowledge of
arthropods is crucial to the conservation and management of ecosystems because a skewed
focus only on the larger organisms will misrepresent ecosystem dynamics. The lack of human
appreciation of the importance of invertebrates and their general disregard and dislike, coupled
to the fact that only about 7-10% of insects are scientifically described, must be overcome to
realistically conserve biodiversity.

Photograph 1. The majority of the site has been subject to heavy overgrazing.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

5
 STUDY AREA

Figure 1. Locality map of the proposed Witpoortjie site.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

6
Photograph 2. The Witpoortjie site is dominated by Tsakane Clay Grassland in various stages of
transformation and degradation. Situated within the lower-lying areas as well as shallow depressions are
seasonally inundated pans.

The Witpoortjie site is situated within the East Rand of Gauteng. The site is bordered to the
west by the M43 (Sailfin), R554 and Van Dyk Dam to the north and open grasslands and
Dalpark to the east and degraded open grasslands to the south (see Figure 1 above). Major
bulk pipelines and railway track occur on the southern boundary of the site.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

7
Figure 2. An elevation profile of the site. The site has a gentle sloping topography from the
north towards the east with an average slope of 1.3%. The major topographical features are the
artificially created mine dumps (old slimes dam) on the northern portion of the site.

Vegetation composition in the area consists of Mesic Highveld Grasslands in various stages of
transformation and degradation falling within the Tsakane Clay Grassland (Gm 9) vegetation
unit (Mucina & Rutherford 2006; see Figure 4 below). The majority of grasslands have been
historically transformed through agricultural activities as well as high-density residential
developments and associated high levels of anthropogenic disturbances including extensive
illegal dumping activities, littering, frequent fires (burning of waste) and harvesting of traditional
medicinal plants. The grasslands to the south of the site comprise of degraded grassland with
limited herb and forb diversity. Patches of primary Themeda triandra grassland were observed on
the western, southern as well as central portions of the site. Several patches of the hydrophilic
Imperata cylindrica was observed within a mosaic in areas with elevated soil moisture throughout
the site.

One general habitat sensitivity scans was carried out mainly during daylight hours (9h00-
nd
14h00) on the 22 of November 2018. The majority of the surveys were conducted on existing
roads, livestock pathways as well as off-road vehicle and quad bike tracks within the
grasslands. Due to the large size of the site little time was spent surveying the old slimes dam
and mine dumps or degraded habitats

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

8
Figure 3. Vegetation map of the Witpoortjie site situated within Tsakane Clay Grassland (Gm9)
(adapted from Mucina et al. 2006).

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

9
Vegetation type

Mesic Highveld Grassland is found mainly in the eastern, precipitation-rich regions of the
Highveld, extending as far as the Northern Escarpment. These are predominantly ‘sour’
grasslands and are dominated primarily by andropogonoid grasses. The different grassland
units are distinguished on the basis of geology and other substrate properties, as well as
elevation, topography and rainfall.

The vegetation of the site falls within the Tsakane Clay Grassland (Gm 8) vegetation unit
(Mucina & Rutherford 2006). The vegetation on the site comprised cool Highveld Grassland in
various stages of transformation and degradation. Patches of Themeda traiandra were
observed on the western, southern and eastern portions of the site. Three seasonally
inundated depressions or pans were observed as well as a poorly defined valley bottom
wetland on the western portion of the site. The northern portion is dominated by an old gold
mine dump and slimes dam. The mine dump is poorly vegetated as large amounts of dust
smothers the adjacent grasslands.

Synonyms:
Cymbopogon-Themeda Veld (VT 48) (Acocks 1953) or Moist Cool Highveld Grassland (39)
(Low & Rebelo 1995).

Locality & Physical Geography:

Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces: In patches extending in a narrow band from Soweto to
Springs, broadening southwards to Nigel and towards Vereeniging, as well as north of the
Vaal Dam and between Balfour and Standerton. Altitude is between 1 480-1 680 m.

Vegetation & Landscape Features: Flat to slightly undulating plains and low hills.
Vegetation is short, dense grassland dominated by a mixture of common Highveld grasses
such as Themeda triandra, Heteropogon contortus, Elionurus muticus and a number of
Eragrostis species. Most prominent forbs are of the families Asteraceae, Rubiaceae,
Lamiaceae and Fabaceae. Disturbances leads to an increase in the abundance of the
grasses Hyparrhenia hirta and Eragrostis chloromelas (Mucina & Rutherford 2006).

Patches of natural Themeda triandra, Heteropogon contortus, Elionurus muticus grassland

was observed on the western as well as central portions of the site. Several large clumps of
Hypoxis hemerocallidea were observed on the southern portions of the site as well as
adjacent to the seasonal pans. The grasslands on the site have low levels of anthropogenic
disturbances due to the presence of security gaurds who mpatrol during the daylight hours.
Activities noted included low-levels of harvesting of Hyparrhenia hirta and Ergagrostis
chloromelas for thatch, removal of medicinal plants, frequent burning of grassland vegetation,
scraping of vegetation and soils on the southern boundary, illegal dumping of building, litter
and invasion of alien invasive vegetation (Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Verbena bonariensis,
Campuloclinium macrocephalum).

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

10
Geology and Soils: The most significant rock is the basaltic lava of the Klipriviersberg Group
(Ventersdorp Supergroup), together with the sedimentary rock of the Madzaringwe Formation
of the Karoo Supergroup Group. Soils are typical of the Ba and Bb land types. Soils on the
site were sandy to sandy-clay-loams. Large amounts of in-filled building waste has been
dumped on the site. No natural rocky extrusions or outcrops on the site. The predominating
soils along the adjacent Kliprivier (300m SW) are very clayey, black vertic or near vertic,
mostly of montmorillonitic clays.

IMPORTANT TAXA

Graminoids (Grasses): Brachiaria serrata, Cynodon dactylon, Cynodon hirsutus, Digitaria

ternate, Elionurus muticus, Eragrostis chloromelas, E. patentipilosa, E. plana, E. racemosa,
Heteropogon contortus, Hyparrhenia hirta, Michrochloa caffra, Setaria sphacelata, Steraa
nigrirostris, Themeda triandra, Trachypogon spicatus, Andropogon schirensis, Aristida
adscensionis, A. bipartita, A. congesta, A. junciformis subsp. galpinii, Cymbopogon caesius,
Digitaria diagonalis, Diheteropogon amplectens, Eragrostis micrantha, E. superba, Melinis
nerviglumis, Harpochloa falx, Microchloa caffra, Paspalum dilatatum.

Herbs: Acanthospernum australe, Ajuga ophrydis, Eriosema salignum, Euryops

transvaalensis, Gerbera viridifolia, Helichrysum nudifolium var. nudifolium, H. rugulosum,
Hermania depressa, Lotononis macrosepala, Nidorella hottentotica, Pentasia prunelloides
subs. latifolia, Pseudanum caffrum, Rotheca hirsuta, Selago paniculata, Senecio coronatus,
S. inornatus, Vernonia oligocephala.

Geophytic Herbs: Aspidoglossum ovalifolium, Hypoxis rigidula var. pillosissima.

Semi-parasitic Herb: Striga asiatica.

Low Shrubs: Anthospermum hispidulum, A. rigidum subsp. pumilum, Chaetacanthus setiger,

Tephrosia capensis var. acutifolia.

Semi-parasitic Shrub: Thesium impeditum.

Key Environmental Parameters:

This vegetation type is restricted to clayey soils of the high rainfall areas of southern Gauteng
and southern Mpumalanga highveld.

Economic Uses:
The grasslands and soils are often ploughed as well as heavily utilised for grazing by cattle
and sheep. The site is currently vacant and utilised for illegal dumping activities, pedestrian
pathways, bush-toilets and limited grass harvesting.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

11
Conservation Status:
Tsakane Clay grasslands are considered to be Endangered. The conservation target is 24%.
Only 1.5% statutorily conserved (Suikerbosrand, Olifantsvlei, Klipriviersberg, Marievale) or
privately conserved (Avalon Nature Reserves, Ian P. Coester, Andros). More than 60% of the
area already transformed by cultivation, urban sprawl, mining, dam building of road
infrastructure. Large portions of Alberton, Springs, Tsakane and part of Soweto were
constructed in the area of this vegetation unit.

Urbanisation is increasing and further expansions especially in the southern suburbs of

Johannesburg and towns on the East Rand (especially Boksburg and Brakpan) will bring
further pressure on the remaining vegetation. Land invasion within open Tsakane Clay
grassland is also a potential for further destruction of this Endangered vegetation unit. Erosion
is generally very low (93%).

Butterfly foodplants: Leerzia hexandra, the larval foodplant of Metisella meninx and likely to
occur within the seasonally inundated pans. Metisella meninx is no longer considered to be a
species of conservation concern. Hermannia depressa, the larval foodplant of Aloeides
dentatis was observed. There are however no records of Aloeides dentatis in the vicinity of
the site, nor was it observed during the survey. It appears that Hermannia depressa is
considerably more widespread than Aloeides dentatis in Gauteng.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Invertebrates were sampled using active and passive methods. Active methods entail
collection by an individual using various kinds of equipment, while passive methods involve
specialised types of traps at specific sites in the field, which are visited at given time intervals.

Passive collection

Pitfall traps

Ten pitfall traps were placed ten meters apart, in a single transect. The pitfall traps were
unbaited. The plastic buckets used for traps had a 1000 mL capacity and were 11 cm in
diameter and 12 cm deep. All the traps were sunk into the ground so that the buckets’ rims
were level with the soil surface. Buckets were filled to about one fifth their volumes with a
solution of liquid soap and water to immobilise trapped invertebrates. Trap contents were
collected 24 hours after the traps had been set. Only insects and arachnids were collected
from the traps. Specimens were preserved in absolute ethanol and transported to the

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

12
laboratory for identification. Morphospecies were identified to order level and family level
where possible.

Active collection

Sweepnetting

Sweepnetting was carried out during all site visits whilst transect netting was carried out on
nd
the 22 November 2018. An insect net with a diameter of 40 cm was used for collecting
insects and arachnids. Three transects were swept on the site and for the sake of
standardisation, 20 sweeps of 180° constituted one transect (and thus one sample). Insects
and arachnids from the samples were preserved in absolute ethanol and transported to the
laboratory for identification. Morphospecies were identified to order level and family level
where possible.

Beating

Due to the absence of indigenous trees on the site and the unlikelihood of catching any
invertebrates of conservation concern by beating, this method was not employed.

Physical searches

Physical ground and rock searches were undertaken in order to identify threatened arachnids,
scorpions and various insects which take refuge underground in burrows or under rocks. The
site is not rocky in nature and lifting of the few rocks and building rubble present did not reveal
any invertebrates of conservation interest.

Data recorded and red data species

A list of all identifiable insects and arachnids caught or seen on the site was compiled and is
included in the results section.

A list of all the invertebrate species of conservation concern known to occur in the survey
area is included in appendix A.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

13
 RESULTS

Invertebrate diversity recorded on Portion 62 of the Farm Witpoortjie

165-IR.

Class Insecta

Dragonflies and damselflies

Order Odonata
Suborder Zygoptera
Family Coenagrionidae
Ischnura senegalensis
Suborder Anisoptera
Family Gomphidae
Ceratogomphus pictus
Family Aeshnidae
Anax imperator
Family Libellulidae
Trithemis arteriosa
Trithemis furva
There are no Odonatan species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Cockroaches
Order Blattodea
Family Blattidae
Deropeltis sp.
There are no Cockroach species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Termites
Order Isoptera
Family Termitidae
Odontotermes badius
Trinervitermes sp.
There are no Termite species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Mantids
Order Mantodea
Family Mantidae
Sphodromantis gastrica
There are no Mantid species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

14
Crickets, Grasshoppers and Locusts
Order Orthoptera
Family Anostostomatidae
Onosandrus sp.
Family Tettigoniidae
Conocephalus caudalis
Family Gryllidae
Gryllus bimaculatus
Family Gryllotalpidae
Gryllotalpa africana
Family Tetrigidae
Family Pyrgomorphidae
Phymateus viridipens
Family Acrididae
Acrotylus sp.
Tmetanota sp.
There are no Orthopterans of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Bugs
Order Hemiptera
Family Miridae
Deroeocoris sp.
Family Reduviidae
Lopodytes sp.
Reduvius sp.
Family Coreidae
Cletus sp.
Family Pyrrhocoridae
Dysdercus intermedius
Family Lygaeidae
Spilostethus sp.
Nezara viridula
Family Cicadellidae
Cofana spectra
Family Aphididae
There are no Hemipteran species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Thrips
Order Thysanoptera
There are no Thrip species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

15
Lacewings and Antlions
Order Neuroptera
Family Chrysopidae
Chrysoperla sp.
Family Myrmeleontidae
Cueta spp.
Macronemurus tinctus
There are no Neuropteran species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Beetles
Order Coleoptera
Family Carabidae
Craspedophorus sp.
Family Scarabaeidae
Subfamily Rutellinae
Subfamily Dynastinae
Heteronychis arator
Subfamily Scarabaeidae
Copris sp.
Family Lycidae
Lycus sp.
Family Melyridae
Astylus astromaculatus
Family Coccinellidae
Subfamily Coccinellinae
Micraspis sp.
Subfamily Epilachninae
Epilachna sp.
Family Tenebrionidae
Gonocephalum simplex
Family Cerambycidae
Family Chrysomelidae
Subfamily Chrysomelinae
Plagiodera sp.
Subfamily Eumolpinae
Macrocoma sp.
Platycorynus sp.
Family Curculionidae
No beetles of conservation concern were observed on the site.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

16
Flies
Order Diptera
Family Tipulidae
Family Psychodidae
Family Bibionidae
Family Asilidae
Leptogaster sp.
Family Bombylidae
Family Muscidae
Musca domestica
Lispe sp.
Family Calliphoridae
Chrysomya sp.
There are no Dipteran species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Caddisflies
Order Trichoptera
There are no Caddisfly species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Moths and Butterflies

Order Lepidoptera
Family Crambidae
Subfamily Crambinae
Subfamily Phycitinae
Family Pterophoridae
Family Alucitidae
Family Geometridae
Family Noctuidae
Family Nymphalidae
Subfamily Danainae
Danaus chrysippus
Subfamily Heliconiinae
Acraea spp.
Subfamily Nymphalinae
Junonia hierta cebrene
Junonia oenone oenone
Vanessa cardui
Family Lycaenidae
Subfamily Lycaenidae
Aloeides aranda
Family Pieridae

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

17
 Subfamily Pierinae
Colotis euippe
Belenois aurota
Pontia helice
Mylothris agathina
Subfamily Coliadinae
Catopsilia florella
Eurema brigitta
Family Papilionidae
Subfamily Papilioninae
Papilio demodocus
No butterflies of conservation concern were observed on the site.

Sawflies, Wasps, Bees & Ants

Order Hymenoptera
Suborder Apocrita
Family Braconidae
Family Chrysididae
Family Mutilidae
Family Vespidae
Polistes sp.
Family Apidae
Apis mellifera
Family Formicidae
Messor capensis
Solenopsis punctaticeps
Linepithema humile
There are no Wasp, Bee or Ant species of conservation concern recorded for Gauteng.

Spiders and scorpions

Class Arachnida

Scorpions
Order Scorpiones
Family Buthidae
Uroplectes triangulifer
No scorpions of conservation concern were observed on the site.

Spiders
Order Aranaea

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

18
 Family Araneidae
Subfamily Araneinae
Larinia sp.
Family Tetragnathidae
Subfamily Leucauginae
Leucauge sp.
Family Uloboridae
Subfamily Uloborinae
Family Eresidae
Subfamily Eresinae
Family Agelenidae
Olorunia sp.
Family Pholicidae
Pholcus sp.
Family Deinopidae
Family Lycosidae
Family Selenopidae
Selenops sp.
Family Zodariidae
Family Thomsidae
Rucinia sp.
No spiders of conservation concern were observed on the site.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

19
 DISCUSSION

It is usually not feasible to sample invertebrate diversity adequately over a relatively short
period of time. There are several selective factors that control certain associations in
invertebrate communities. These factors include the nature of the soil substrate, fauna and
flora of the specific region, rainfall and temperature. The widespread use of pesticides in an
area, as well as the level of pollution, might lead to a decrease in the population sizes of
invertebrates. Maximum insect activity is usually correlated with the onset of the rainy season.

Conditions for maximum insect activity were optimal during initial site visits. Maximum
temperatures were constantly above 25°C for some period of time and much rain had yet
been recorded for the locality (10 – 12 mm of rain is usually regarded as sufficient to stimulate
peak insect activity). Different species emerge at different times of a season, often depending
on the weather. Thus, the availability of invertebrates for trapping will depend on the weather
and on their abundance.

Furthermore, the temporal development of the various species that constitute communities
may make individuals available for capture for only a short time. Most sampling devices or
techniques target only a single stage of the life cycle. The adult stages of most invertebrates
are usually more conspicuous and easier to collect than when individuals are present in egg,
juvenile (nymphal or larval), pupal or sub-adult stages. However, some adult insects live for a
very short time and when emergence of a population is synchronised; adults may only be
present in the field for a week or less. Due to time constraints, certain sampling methods were
not employed. One such method is light trapping, thus excluding various nocturnal species
that were not collected from the pitfall traps.

It is preferable to identify specimens to the species level, because for nearly all objectives it is
better to have specific information on carefully chosen groups than family-level information on
many. However, securing reliable identification to the species-level is the greatest single
difficulty in invertebrate biodiversity. Except in some of the best known groups, expert
knowledge is required to ensure that identifications are accurate. Such expertise is often both
extremely limited and in great demand for a great many activities.

During site visits, no invertebrates of conservation concern were located. It must however be
mentioned that whilst employing the Rapid Biodiversity Assessment (RBA) method, there
does exist the possibility that certain other rare invertebrate species may not have been
encountered.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

20
Four invertebrate species of conservation concern are known to occur in the vicinity of the
survey area. These include three species of butterfly and one species of cetonid beetle. None
of these species were encountered during the survey. This, however, does not imply that one
is unlikely to encounter any of these species in the study area as they may have been missed
by sampling due to multiple factors.

Lepidochrysops praeterita, commonly known as the Highveld Blue, is rare and localized on
highveld grassland between Potchefstroon in North West Province, Sasolburg in the Free
State Province and Walkerville in Gauteng Province. This butterfly frequents hillsides on
which Becium grandiflorum grows, flying fast and close to the ground from September to
November. A small population has been detected in the Walkerville area which is located
more than 50km to the east of the survey area. No specimens were observed during the
survey. Due to the absence of suitable habitat (highveld grassland with trees) as well as its
larval food plant, the species can be considered absent from the survey area.

Chrysoritis aureus, commonly known as the Heidelberg Copper Butterfly, is a monophagous,

myrmycophilous butterfly species, known from a handful of localities on the Heidelberg-
Balfour-Greylingstad ridge system. It is not immediately apparent what the habitat of this
species is, ie what factors determine suitable habitat. The known records represent colonies
of this butterfly which occur around rock faces inhabited by the host ant species and where
the host plant also occurs. Colonies are made up several tens of individuals which are active
2
over an area of about 100m in the vicinity of the ant colonies. The butterflies do not occur in
areas where the host plant grows larger than about 1m in height. It has been speculated that
the species only occurs at the highest altitudes on the ridge system, but there are some
colonies found lower than the proposed suitable altitudinal range. It has also been speculated
that it only occurs in ‘rain shadow’ areas on the ridge, usually on SE facing slopes, where the
resultant water stress inhibits the production of allelochemicals in the host plant, but this has
not been tested. Fire has been demonstrated to be important for the species in that it keeps
the vegetation structure open (Terblanche et al 2003). Specimens of this species were not
observed during the survey, nor does suitable habitat occur on the site.

Aloeides dentatis dentatis (Figure 3.2) is a butterfly species known to be threatened by urban
development in Gauteng. This species is known from three colonies in Gauteng, namely the
Witpoortjie colony, the Glenvista colony and the Suikerbosrand colony. The latter colony is
protected in the Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve and its larval foodplant is Lotononis eriathrina.
This plant was not found to be present on the site. The Witpoortjie colony is protected in the
Ruimsig Entomological Reserve and its larval foodplant is either Hermannia depressa or
Hermannia jacobeifolia. A concerted effort was made to locate either the species itself, any of
its three larval foodplants or its associated ant species Lepisiota capensis. Despite extensive
searching, none of the three larval foodplants were observed on the site. It can therefore be
confidently stated that Aloeides dentatis is absent from the site.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

21
Ichnestoma stobbiai (Figure 3.3) is a cetonid beetle of immense scientific interest and
conservation concern. Females are flightless and adults emerge for only 2 - 4 days, thereby
severely restricting this species in terms of gene flow and dispersal ability. I. stobbiai was
previously thought to be extremely habitat specific and reside almost exclusively under tufts of
the grass species Eragrostis micrantha. The location of new populations of this species in
caravan parks and exotic gardens suggest that the species is more robust than previously
thought. Apart from one population near Hartbeespoort dam, this species is found only in
Gauteng and is severely threatened due its poor dispersal ability. There are currently eleven
confirmed populations of this beetle in Gauteng, none of which occur in close vicinity of the
survey area.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

22
 RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed development is not expected to impact significantly on any sensitive floristic or
faunal habitat, Red Data species, populations, assemblages or communities, since the
ecological status of the area is degraded.

General mitigation measures

Development should only take place in areas with an ecological footprint. Although the site is
ecologically degraded, the new landowner needs to remove all the alien invasive plant
species and employ further restrictions and control, as specified by CARA Regulations. An
ecological management plan must be compiled by a suitably qualified specialist for
implementation by the appropriate management authority. This ecological management must
include a fire management programme and an ongoing monitoring and eradication
programme for all non-indigenous species, with specific emphasis on invasive and weedy
species. Where removal of alien species may leave soil exposed, alternative indigenous
species should be established to prevent any erosion. Plants growing naturally on the site
must, as best possible be retained and incorporated into landscaping. When additional plant
species are used for landscaping, special emphasis should be focused on forage and host
plants required by herbivores and pollinators present in the area and must otherwise only be
limited to those indigenous to South Africa, although species that are locally indigenous or
endemic should enjoy preference (Refer to table 1). The integrity of natural vegetation that
falls outside landscaped areas, such as indigenous grass species and leaf litter, should be
preserved, as it provides a habitat, microclimate and food source to various smaller
vertebrates and notably invertebrates. Moreover it also provides a habitat to many reptiles
and invertebrates, some of which may be endangered and/or protected species. Several of
these species may complete their entire life cycles in this specific niche.

Table 1. List of plants and shrubs are recommended for butterflies (nectar plants)
Pentas lanceolata and Pentas lanceolata
Buddleja salvifolia
Verbena spp.
Asclepias spp.
Bougainvillea spp. (Varieties such as Killie Campbell)
Plumbago auriculata
Impatiens spp.
Kalanchoe spp.
Lobelia species
Limonium spp.
Asystasia gangetica

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

23
Building activities must be restricted and carefully monitored to keep disturbance to a
minimum, and must be appropriately rehabilitated and managed. This entails the removal and
proper disposal of all rubble and litter previously dumped on the site illegally, as well as all
scrap materials, building rubble and rubbish dumped on the site during construction, at official
municipal dumping grounds. No dumping of any materials in undeveloped open areas or
along the seasonal stream should be allowed and this must be actively managed.
Construction must preferably take place during the dry season and no temporary housing,
temporary ablution, disturbance of natural habitat, storing of equipment or any other use of
the buffer/flood zone whatsoever, may be permitted during the construction phase. All
construction-related impacts (including service roads) must be contained within the fenced-off
development areas” (Phab, 2006).

It is imperative that adequate erosion preventative mechanisms are implemented throughout

the construction phase. Erosion resulting from the development should be appropriately
rehabilitated preventing further habitat deterioration. Stormwater runoff must be correctly
managed during all phases of the development. Special care needs to be taken during the
construction phase to prevent surface stormwater containing sediments and other pollutants
from entering the drainage line. A surface runoff and stormwater management plan must be
put in place. The total sealing of walkways, pavements, drive ways and parking lots should
not be permitted in the free space system. These should form part of and be contained within
the areas earmarked for development. This would aid in the minimising of artificially
generated surface stormwater runoff.

The use of insecticides, herbicides and other chemicals should not be permitted within 200m
of the open space system. An integrated pest management programme, where the use of
chemicals is considered as a last option, should be employed. However, if chemicals are
used to clear invasive vegetation and weedy species or for the control of invertebrate pests,
species-specific chemicals should be applied and in the recommended dosages. General
spraying should be prohibited and the application of chemicals as part of a control programme
should not be permitted to take place on windy days.

Outside lighting should be designed to minimize impacts, both directly on especially rare or
endangered invertebrate species and indirectly by impacts on populations of prey species. All
outside lighting should be directed away from sensitive areas. No domestic cats should be
allowed, and where domestic dogs are kept, the entire development should be fenced to
prevent dogs from straying into the free space system. Dogs should not be allowed to wonder
into any of the natural surroundings, even if accompanied by the owner, as this poses a
serious threat to the persistence of wild species, particularly small mammals.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

24
 REFERENCES
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA TERRESTRIAL ARTHROPODS. 1996.
Briefs – How to assess insect biodiversity without wasting your time.
[Online]. (URL http:// www.biology.ualberta.ca) (Accessed 7 February 2007).

BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA TERRESTRIAL ARTHROPODS. 1996.

Briefs – Terrestrial arthropod biodiversity: planning a study and
recommended sampling techniques. [Online]. (URL http://
www.biology.ualberta.ca) (Accessed 7 February 2007).

BLACK, S. F. & VAUGHAN, D. 2003. Endangered insects. Pp. 364-368. in Resh,

V. H. and R. Carde. 2003 The Encyclopedia of Insects. Academic Press,
San Diego, CA.

BROMILOW, C. 2001. Problem plants of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria.

FILMER, M. R. 1999. Southern African Spiders: An identification guide. Struik

Publishers, Cape Town.

GAUTENG STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT. 2004. Biodiversity. [Online]. (URL

http:// www.environment.gov.za/soer/reports/gauteng). (Accessed 7 February 2007).

HOLM, E., MARAIS, E. 1992. Fruit Chafers of Southern Africa. Sigma Press (Pty)
Ltd., Pretoria.

LEEMING, J. 2003. Scorpions of Southern Africa. Struik.

LEROY, A. & LEROY, J. 2003. Spiders of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers,

Cape Town.

MCKINNELY, M. L. 1999. High rates of extinction and threat in poorly studied

taxa. Conservation Biology 13: 1273-1281.

PICKER, M., GRIFFITHS, C. & WEAVING, A. 2002. Insects of South Africa.

Struik.

PFAB, M. 2006. Requirements for biodiversity assessments. Department of Agriculture,

Conservation and Environment, Directorate of Nature Conservation GDACE,
Johannesburg.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

25
SAMWAYS, M.J. 1993. Insects in biodiversity conservation: some perspectives
and directives. Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 258-282.

SCHOLTZ, C.H. & HOLM, E. 1985. Insects of Southern Africa. Butterworths,

Durban.

VAN WYK, A. E. & MALAN, S.J. 1998. Field guide to the wild flowers of the highveld. Struik
Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town.

VAN OUDTSHOORN, F. 1999. Gids tot grasse van Suider Afrika. Briza Publications, Pretoria.

VAN WYK, B. & VAN WYK, P. 1997. Field guide to trees of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers
(Pty) Ltd, Cape Town.

WOODHALL, S. 2005. Field guide to butterflies of South Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd,
Cape Town.

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

26
 Appendix A
Invertebrates of conservation concern known to occur in the vicinity of
the survey area

Class Insecta

Beetles

Order Coleoptera
Family Scarabaeidae
Subfamily Cetoniinae
Ichnestoma stobbiai

Butterflies

Order Lepidoptera
Family Lycaenidae
Subfamily Theclinae
Tribe Aphnaeini
Aloeides dentatis dentatis
Chrysoritis areus
Subfamily Polyommatinae
Tribe Polyommatini
Lepidochrysops praeterita

Invertebrate Assessment – Ptn 62 Witpoortjie

27