Journal of Ecophysiology and Occupational Health

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Density and Distribution of Principal Prey Species of Tigers and Leopards in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh


Affiliations
1 Department of Population Management, Capture and Rehabilitation, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun – 248001, Uttarakhand, India
2 Ex-director, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore – 641108, Tamil Nadu, India
 

Conservation of large carnivores is dependent on a viable population of their principal prey species. Line transect based density estimation has been established as a robust method for monitoring prey population trend. Chital (Axis axis) and sambar (Rusa unicolor) are the major ungulates in Pench tiger reserve, Madhya Pradesh that are principal tiger and leopard prey. Estimated densities using line transect surveys were highest for chital in the study area with a range of 44–52 individuals per sq. km. from 2013–16. Sambar density remained stable ranging from 5–8 individuals per sq. km. over the three years (2013–16). Camera trap-based encounter rate was used to calculate the Relative Abundance Index of the principal prey species of tigers and leopards in the study area. Spatial distribution pattern using the Relative Abundance Index showed that 47.16% chital captures were congregated near the submergence area whereas 38.53% sambar captures were near rugged areas. Abundant resources and lack of competition from domestic livestock in the core zone contribute to such high estimates of prey population in the study area.


Keywords

Camera Trap Based Encounter Rate, Chital, Line-Transect Based Density, Relative Abundance Index, Sambar.
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • McNaughton SJ. Grazing as an optimization process: Grassungulate relationships in the Serengeti. The American Naturalist. 1979; 113(5):691–703. https://doi.org/10.1086/283426

  • Crawley MJ. Herbivory: The dynamics of animal-plant interactions. Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1983.

  • Schaller GB. The deer and the tiger. A study of Wildlife in India. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1967. p. 384.

  • Karanth KU, Sunquist ME. Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1995:439– 50. https://doi.org/10.2307/5647

  • Biswas S, Sankar K. Prey abundance and food habit of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Zoology. 2002 Mar; 256(3):411–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836902000456

  • Wang W, Zhang L, Wang H, Li Z. Pattern formation of a predator-prey system with Ivlev-type functional response. Ecological Modelling. 2010; 221(2):131–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.09.011

  • Jhala YV, Qureshi Q, Nayak AK. Status of tigers, copredators and prey in India, 2018. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun; 2020.

  • Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Marques TA, Oedekoven CS. Distance sampling: Methods and applications. New York, NY, USA: Springer; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19219-2

  • Buckland ST, Thomas L, Marques FF, Strindberg S, Hedley SL, Pollard JH, et al. Distance sampling: Recent advances and future directions. Quantitative Methods for Current Environmental Issues. 2002:79–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-06579_4

  • Roy M. Evaluating methods to monitor tiger abundance and its prey in Indian Sunderbans. [Ph.D. thesis]. Saurashtra University. Gujarat; 2019

  • Kafley H, Lamichhane BR, Maharjan R, Thapaliya B, Bhattarai N, Khadka M, Gompper ME. Estimating prey abundance and distribution from camera trap data using binomial mixture models. European Journal of Wildlife Research. 2019; 65(5):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-019-1308-0

  • Carter NH, Shrestha BK, Karki JB, Pradhan NM, Liu J. Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012; 109(38):15360–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210490109. PMid:22949642. PMCid:PMC3458348

  • Carbone C, Christie S, Conforti K, Coulson T, Franklin N, Ginsberg JR, et al. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. In Animal Conservation forum 2001 Feb (Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 75-79). Cambridge University Press; 2001. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943001001081

  • Rowcliffe JM, Field J, Turvey ST, Carbone C. Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2008; 45(4):1228–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01473.x

  • Sankar K, Qureshi Q, Majumder A, Basu S. Ecology of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. Final report, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun; 2013. https://doi.org/10.2461/wbp.2012.8.4

  • Sankar K, Qureshi Q, Chatterjee AB. Ecology of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, Phase - II. Final report, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun; 2017.

  • Majumder A, Basu S, Sankar K, Qureshi Q, Jhala YV, Gopal R. Prey selection, food habits and temporal activity patterns of sympatric carnivores in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, Central India. Journal of Scientific Transactions in Environment and Technovation. 2012; 5:110–20.

  • Schaller GB. The deer and the tiger. A study of wildlife in India. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1967. p. 384.

  • Dinerstein E. An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Part I: vegetation, modifying factors, and successional relationships. Biological conservation; 1979. 15(2):127–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(79)90055-7

  • Karanth KU, Sunquist ME. Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1995; 64:439–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/5647

  • Sunquist ME, Karanth KU, Sunquist F. Ecology, behaviour and resilience of the tiger and its conservation needs. In: Seidensticker J, Christie S, Jackson P (eds). Riding the tiger; Tiger conservation in human dominated landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 5–18.

  • Karanth KU, Stith BM. Prey depletion as a critical deter- minant of tiger population viability. In: Seidensticker J, Christie S, Jackson P (eds). Riding the tiger: Tiger conservation in human dominated landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1999.

  • Wikramanayake E, Dinerstein E, Seidensticker J, Lumpkin S, Pandav B, Shrestha M, et al. A landscape?based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conservation Letters. 2011; 4(3):219–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755263X.2010.00162.x

  • Southwell C, Weaver K. Evaluation of analytical procedures for density estimation from line-transect data: Data grouping, data truncation and the unit of analysis. Wildlife Research. 1993; 20(4):433–43. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR9930433

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR. A practical information-theoretic approach. Model selection and multimodel inference. 2002; 2.

  • Oliver MA, Webster R. Kriging: a method of interpolation for geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information System. 1990; 4(3):313–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02693799008941549

  • Bagchi S, Goyal SP, Sankar K. Prey abundance and prey selection by tigers (Panthera tigris) in a semi-arid, dry deciduous forest in western India. Journal of Zoology. 2003; 260(3):285–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836903003765

  • Ramesh T, Sridharan N, Sankar K, Qureshi Q, Selvan KM, Gokulakkannan N, et al. Status of large carnivores and their prey in tropical rainforests of South-western Ghats, India. Tropical Ecology. 2012; 53(2):137–48.

  • Eisenberg JF, Seidensticker J. Ungulates in southern Asia: A consideration of biomass estimates for selected habitats. Biological Conservation. 1976; 10(4):293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(76)90003-3

  • Jhala YV, Qureshi Q, Gopal R. The status of tigers, copredators and prey in India 2014. National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. TR2015/021; 2015.

  • Carbone C, Gittleman JL. A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science. 2002; 295(5563):2273–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1067994. PMid:11910114

  • Hatton IA, McCann KS, Fryxell JM, Davies TJ, Smerlak M, Sinclair AR, et al. The predator-prey power law: Biomass scaling across terrestrial and aquatic biomes. Science. 2015; 349(6252). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac6284. PMid:26339034


Abstract Views: 249

PDF Views: 301




  • Density and Distribution of Principal Prey Species of Tigers and Leopards in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh

Abstract Views: 249  |  PDF Views: 301

Authors

Anindita Bidisha Chatterjee
Department of Population Management, Capture and Rehabilitation, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun – 248001, Uttarakhand, India
Kalyansundaram Sankar
Ex-director, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore – 641108, Tamil Nadu, India
Qamar Qureshi
Department of Population Management, Capture and Rehabilitation, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun – 248001, Uttarakhand, India

Abstract


Conservation of large carnivores is dependent on a viable population of their principal prey species. Line transect based density estimation has been established as a robust method for monitoring prey population trend. Chital (Axis axis) and sambar (Rusa unicolor) are the major ungulates in Pench tiger reserve, Madhya Pradesh that are principal tiger and leopard prey. Estimated densities using line transect surveys were highest for chital in the study area with a range of 44–52 individuals per sq. km. from 2013–16. Sambar density remained stable ranging from 5–8 individuals per sq. km. over the three years (2013–16). Camera trap-based encounter rate was used to calculate the Relative Abundance Index of the principal prey species of tigers and leopards in the study area. Spatial distribution pattern using the Relative Abundance Index showed that 47.16% chital captures were congregated near the submergence area whereas 38.53% sambar captures were near rugged areas. Abundant resources and lack of competition from domestic livestock in the core zone contribute to such high estimates of prey population in the study area.


Keywords


Camera Trap Based Encounter Rate, Chital, Line-Transect Based Density, Relative Abundance Index, Sambar.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18311/jeoh%2F2022%2F29182