status of tigers in pilibhit forest divisionawsassets.wwfindia.org/downloads/status_of_tigers...mr....

Status of Tigers in Pilibhit Forest DivisionTerai Arc Landscape, Uttar Pradesh, India

Tiger Population In Pilibhit Forest Division 2010 page 2

Copyright © 2010- All rights reservedWWF-India172-B, Lodi EstateNew Delhi 110 003, IndiaTel. +91-11-4150 4797Website: www.wwfindia.org

Published: August 2010

Citation:Anwar, M., Kumar, H., Vattakaven, J., 2010. Status of Tigers in Pilibhit Forest Division, Terai Arc Landscape, Uttar Pradesh, India. WWF-India.

CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6SUMMARY 7CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 8

2.1 Location 2.2 Physical features 2.3 Flora & fauna

CHAPTER 2: STUDY AREA 10

3.1 Pre-field work 3.2 Reconnaissance survey 3.3 Data collection 3.4 Analytical details 3.4.1 Mark-Recapture approach 3.4.2 Inverse Prediction Method for density estimation 3.4.3 Maximum Likelihood method for density estimation

CHAPTER 3: METHODS 14

4.1 Capture Dynamics 4.2 New Capture Saturation 4.3 Closure Test and Model selection 4.4 Tiger Population (N-hat) 4.5 Tiger Density (D-hat)

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 21

5.1 Capture Dynamics 5.2 New Capture Saturation 5.3 Closure Test and Model selection 5.4 Tiger Population (N-hat) 5.5 Tiger Density (D-hat)

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 28

CHAPTER 6: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND 30 RECOMMENDATIONSREFERENCES 31

ANNEXURES 34Annexure 1 Annexure 2 Annexure 3 Annexure 4 Annexure 5 Annexure 6 Annexure 7Annexure 8Annexure 9

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.1: Location map of Pilibhit forest division and adjoining Protected Areas Figure 3.1: Location of trap stations over Landsat image of Pilibhit forest division Figure 3.3: Camera trap locations with minimum convex polygon, ½ MMDM and MMDM buffers (a) and with habitat masking (b) Figure 4.1: Percentage of captures of males and females in different quarters of total occasions Figure 4.2: Photographs of individual tigers (Right & Left flanks) with a map of capture sites Figure 4.3: Rate of tiger photographs and cumulative number of new captures in Pilibhit Forest Division

LIST OF TABLESTable 3.1: X-matrix of individual tigers (11) in Pilibhit forest division for 40 occasions and 73 captures used in Capture, CloseTest and MARK 4.1 Table 3.2: Matrix used in Density 4.4.5 Table 3.3: Trap location file used in Density 4.4.5 Table 4.1: Selected model and tiger population with other statistics in the study area Table 4.2: Tiger density and other statistics in the study area

© JO

SE

PH

VATTAK

AVE

N/W

WF-IN

DIA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank the following organizations and associated individuals for their help and inputs in carrying out the present study successfully.

Forest Department, Uttar Pradesh, for permission, logistic support, secondary information, and assistance in data collection.Mr. B. K. Patnaik, (PCCF), Mr. V. K. Singh (DFO-Pilibhit), Mr. S. R. Singh (S.D.O.), Mr. R. P. Yadav (Range Officer (RO)-Mahof), Mr. Alijaan Ansari (R.O.-Mala), Mr. Imtiyaz Siddiqui (R.O.- Barahi), Mr. Mobin Arif (Forester), Mr. Navneet Singh (Forester), Mr. M. Arif (Forester), Mr. P. P. Singh (Forester), forest guards, beat watchers and rest house care takers.

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, for technical inputs, guidance in data analysis, and assistance in data collectionMr. Qamar Qureshi (Scientist-F), Dr. Y.V. Jhala (Scientist-G), Mr. Manas P. Manjrekar (Research Fellow), Mr. Dipankar Lakhar (Research Fellow), Mr. Awanish K. Rai (Research Fellow), Mr. Wasi Azmi (Volunteer), Mr. Anant Pandey (Research Fellow ), Mr. Chitranjan Dave (Research Fellow), Ms. Swati, Mrs. Babita and Mr. Ved P. Ola.

WWF- India (Pilibhit Field Office), for accounts management and smooth running of data collection.Mr. Anil Srivastva (Accounts officer), Mr. Kandhai lal (Asst. Project Officer), Mr. Virendra (Driver), Mr. Prem (Driver).

WWF- India (Ramnagar Field Office), for accounts related tasks and coordination. Mr. Hem Tewari (Landscape Coordinator), Mr. Neeraj Pant (Accounts Officer), Mr. Prem (Office Attendant).

WWF- India (Secretariat-New Delhi)We wish to thank Mr. Ravi Singh, SG & CEO, WWF-India. Dr. Sejal Worah, Programme Director, & Dr Dipankar Ghose, Director, Species and Landscapes for their timely inputs and help with logistics and coordination. Thanks are also due to Copal Mathur, Sonali Nandrajog and Anil Cherukupalli for designing and editing this report.

A special thank you to Mrs. V. K. Singh, for regularly motivating the team in the field. We are also thankful to the local stakeholders (villagers) for restraining themselves from the study area during data collection and making the study disturbance free without any loss of camera traps.

-Sd.(Authors)


SUMMARYTigers are a flagship and conservation dependant species

Considering the biodiversity rich habitat of Pilibhit Forest Division, including breeding tigers, and its connectivity to other critical forest blocks in this landscape, we recommend enhancing the protection and status of this reserve forest and declaring it as a Tiger Reserve at the earliest.

Estimating the density of tigers in an area provides crucial information to conserve and manage tigers, its prey base and habitat. The population and density of tigers in Pilibhit forest division was estimated in a systematic scientific framework using the camera trapping technique. Thirty best sites were selected as camera trap stations on the basis of occurrence of tiger signs. A total of 174 photographs were captured in 1200 trap days over 40 occasions with 76.7% tiger photo capture success rate per trap station. Eleven individual adult tigers were identified on the basis of unique strip patterns. The capture curve for new tigers reached an asymptote on the 13th occasion. Population of tigers was estimated to be 12±1.50 (N-hat±SE) by the selected model (Mh jackknife) and it could range between 12 and 19 (95% Confidence Interval). Density of the tigers in the Pilibhit Forest Divison was estimated to be 3.86±1.20 per 100 km² (D-hat±SE) using Maximum Likelihood method (Half normal, AIC=804.64) ranging between 2.13 to 7.00 (95% Confidence Interval) and 4.95±1.2 per 100 km² using ½ MMDM method with habitat masking and ranging between 4.58 and 8.00 per 100 km².

© JO

SE

PH

VATTAK

AVE

N/W

WF-IN

DIA


1.0INTRODUCTION

While the tiger as a species may not go extinct within the next two decades, the current trajectory may cause

wild populations to disappear in many places, or shrink to the point of “ecological extinction”-where their numbers are too few to play their role as the top predator in the ecosystem (Sanderson et al. 2006). Conflict with humans, prey depletion, poaching, habitat loss and habitat fragmentation remain the most obvious threats to tigers in the wild, underscoring the need for political will to confront these challenges (Seidensticker et al. 1999a; Johnsingh & Negi 2003; Graham et al. 2005; Wang & Macdonald 2006).

India harbors a reasonably large proportion of the world’s tiger population. This is mainly attributed to a good forest cover (158,373 km2, 4.82% of total geographical area) under a Protected Area network (660) of 99 National Parks, 514 Wildlife Sanctuaries, 43 Conservation Reserves and 4 Community Reserves (NWDC, W.I.I. 2010) including 38 Tiger Reserves with an area of 32137.14 km2 (NTCA 2010). In India, conservation efforts such as Project Tiger have, since 1973, been attempting to save the nations declining population of tigers, their prey and habitats. Yet, about 26% of their range has been lost in the recent past (Qureshi et al. 2006). One such landscape, the Terai Arc Landscape, encompassing the Shivalik hills and the Terai flood plains running parallel to the outer Himalayas are considered one of the most threatened and fragile ecosystems in the Indian subcontinent. This productive landscape (Wikramanayake et al. 2004) is most prone to human disturbances (Johnsingh et al. 2004). The tiger has become locally extinct in 29% of the districts of this landscape where it was historically recorded. Currently, the tiger occupies 5080 km2 of forested habitats (Jhala et al. 2008). Protection cover for tigers diminish rapidly in the areas outside declared Protected Areas where boundaries of land use by humans and core tiger habitat are often blurred. These areas also witness human-wildlife conflict frequently. Therefore, estimating the population and density of wild tigers in such areas is of prime importance to ecologists and managers.

In most situations the goals of managing natural animal populations are expressed in terms of population size. The use of capture-recapture theory (Otis et al. 1978; Pollock et al. 1990) and remotely triggered cameras to capture individually identifiable animals has resulted in their use for estimating demographic parameters (Karanth 1995; Karanth and Nichols 1998; Karanth et al. 2006). Owing to its applicability in a wide variety of habitats (Karanth et al. 2004) and ability to provide information on activity pattern, habitat use and reproductive status of cryptic carnivores, camera trapping has in the recent past gained popularity (Griffiths 1993; Karanth 1995; Karanth and Nichols 1998; O’Brien et al. 2003; Trolle and Kery 2003). Availability of various softwares such as CAPTURE (Rextad & Burnham 1991), MARK 4.1 (Cooch & White 1995) and Density 4.4.5 (Efford 2009) etc. makes this technique hassle free and statistically highly precise for estimation of populations.

Tigers are a conservation dependent species. They require protection from poaching, an adequate prey base, and adequate habitat.

Chapter 1

The present study was carried out in Pilibhit forest division in Uttar Pradesh, which is a reserve forest in a human dominated landscape matrix. This study was the first of its kind in this forest division and was well supported by the Forest Department. Local villagers restricted their movement in a manner to collect the data efficiently without a single loss of camera trap unit during the study period. The objectives of the study were as follows:1.To identify individual tigers and other fauna in the study area using camera traps.2.To estimate population and density of tigers in the study area of Pilibhit forest division by photographic capture-recapture modeling approach.

©JO

SE

PH

VATTAK

AVE

N/W

WF-IN

DIA

Tiger in Sal forest habitat


2.1 LocationPilibhit Forest Division covers an area of 712.88 km2 and is situated between 28º52’-28º46’ N Latitude and 79º55’-82º15’ E Longitude in the foothills of Himalaya adjoining Shukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve, Nepal (Figure 2.1). Administratively, this forest division is managed under five forest ranges namely Barahi, Haripur, Deoria, Mala and Mahof, which comprises of 52 Forest Beats (management units). This division is very important for long term conservation of wildlife in the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) owing to its contiguity with the terai-bhabar forests of Surai range of Terai East Forest Division (FD) in the north-west and with the Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS) in the south-east. This division also provides connectivity to the Shukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve with Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary in India through Lagga-Bagga forest block, Tatarganj area of North Kheri FD and across Sharda river, Haripur range of Pilibhit FD. At places, this division shares its legal boundary with the human dominated matrices. In the east of the FD, North Kheri and South Kheri FDs are situated.

2.2 Physical features

2.0STUDY AREA

The present study was carried out in Pilibhit forest division in Uttar Pradesh, which is a reserved forest in a human dominated landscape matrix.

Figure 2.1 Location map of Pilibhit

forest division and adjoining Protected Areas

Chapter 2


Lower water table and swampy areas are peculiar

features of terai

The vegetation in the area is a mosaic of dry and moist

deciduous forests, scrub savannah and productive alluvial grasslands, which

harbour a rich fauna

Topography of most of the forest area is plain and the general aspect is south-west. The slope falls 2-3 m per km distance. The altitude ranges from 200 to 145m a.m.s.l. This division looses the characteristics of bhabar areas in the south and forms flat alluvial plains of terai. Lower water table and swampy areas are peculiar features of terai. Small ditches, ponds and perennial rivers such as Sharda, Mala, Khannot, Chuka and Gomti are the major sources of water. Main Sharda canal and other canal channels pass through the different forest areas of the FD, providing water for wildlife even during peak summer season. Seepage of water from these canal system forms swampy areas and many small ditches, providing good habitat for swamp deer, rhinos and tigers too. Sharda Sagar dam was built during 1953-57. This 22 km long water reservoir also acts as a water source for the FD. Most of the areas remain inundated during the monsoon.

2.3 Flora & FaunaPilibhit FD is a part of Terai Arc Landscape and according to the recent classification proposed by Wikramanayake et al. (1999, 2002) that takes into consideration both biogeography and conservation values, the landscape corresponds to three ecoregions – (i) Upper Gangetic Plains moist deciduous forest, (ii) Terai-Duar savanna and grasslands and (iii) Himalayan subtropical broadleaf forest. The vegetation in the area is a mosaic of dry and moist deciduous forests, scrub savannah and productive alluvial grasslands, which harbour a rich fauna including several endemic and globally endangered species. Prominent among such species are the Royal Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) and swamp deer (Cervus duvaucelli). Other endemic and obligate species found in this landscape are the hog deer (Axis porcinus), hispid hare (Caprolagus hispidus), Bengal florican (Houbaropsis bengalensis) and swamp francolin (Francolinus gularis). Many of these species, surviving in small populations, have their last home in this landscape (Johnsingh et al. 2004). The Asian elephant and one-horned rhinoceros are migratory species in the division.

©JO

SE

PH

VATTAK

AVE

N/W

WF-IN

DIA


3.0METHODS

3.1 Pre-Field workA landsat image (Dated 19th November, 2009, Path 145, and Row 040) was downloaded and processed for its use in the reconnaissance survey and thereafter. A copy of the management plan of the Pilibhit FD and blue print of the division was acquired from the Divisional Forest Office, Pilibhit. Secondary information about the trails and dirt roads regularly used by tigers in the division was also acquired from the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Range Officers, Foresters, Forest Guards and Beat Watchers of Pilibhit FD for selecting a suitable patch to carry out field data collection after verification.

3.2 Reconnaissance SurveyReconnaissance survey was carried out from 4th May to 18th May, 2009. On the basis of secondary information and sign survey, 75 initial locations were selected for deploying trap stations. Geo-coordinates of the suitable sites were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System receiver (Garmin Etrex). These points were further monitored for considerable time for the signs of tigers and overlaid over gridded landsat image in Geographic Information System environment using ArcGIS 9.2 and ERDAS Imagine 9.1. By further considering regular occurrence of tiger signs, 30 suitable sites were selected as trap stations in a manner so that at least one station fell in each grid of 5 km² and each station seperated by about 2 km away from other stations (Figure 3.1).

The standard method of camera trapping in accordance with Capture-Recapture framework was followed to collect and analyze the data for tiger population and density estimation in the study area in Pilibhit forest division.

Figure 3.1 Location of trap stations over

Landsat image of Pilibhit forest division

Chapter 3


3.3 Data CollectionData collection was carried out during 40 occasions from 22nd May to 30th June, 2010. MOULTRIE (D-40, Moultrie Feeders, Alabama) passive camera units were initially tested and deployed in the field on 19th and 20th May, 2010. Moultrie digital passive units is activated by infrared sensors that detect animal presence by sensing a moving heat source whose temperature is different than the ambient temperature. The unit has a 4.0 megapixel digital camera which has a quick trigger time, 45-ft flash and a reasonably good battery life. Spitting, smoking, tobacco consumption etc was discouraged near trap stations, though some grasses and shrubs were cleared to get obstruction free captures. Site clearing was done five days in advance before deploying of camera units in the field to allow animals to get acclimatized to the area. On each station, two camera units were placed on poles or tree trunks between 30 and 40 cm height from the ground in such a way so as to capture both flanks of the animal simultaneously. The cameras were placed at a distance of 4 to 8 meters on both sides from the center of the trail to get good quality full frame pictures of animals on the locations. The camera delay was kept at minimum to minimize the chance of missing mating pairs or a female with cubs in case such an event occured. All of the cameras were regularly checked in the field for its proper functioning, orientation and status of the battery. Pictures were downloaded on alternate days and orientation of the cameras were adjusted accordingly. Systematic downloading of the data from all the trap stations was also carried out after every 10th day. After examining the stripe pattern on the flanks, limbs, forequarters and sometimes even tail (Schaller, 1967; McDougal, 1977; Karanth, 1995), every tiger captured was given a unique identification number e.g. PMT001 & PFT005 where PMT and PFT stands for Pilibhit Male Tiger and Pilibhit Female Tiger with their individual numbers respectively. Males were differentiated from females based on the presence of testicles. Print out of the captures were taken for ease in individual identification.

3.4 Analytical detailsAbundance & Density of the tigers in the study area was estimated by using software MARK 4.1, CAPTURE 2 and Density 4.4.5.

Data was analysed in Mark-Recapture framework which uses various suitable models on the basis of basic assumptions of demographically and geographically closed population (Otis et al. 1978; Karanth 1995; Karanth & Nichols 1998). Probabilistic capture-recapture estimators can model capture probabilities being heterogenous among individuals in a population due to its social structure or due to effect of behavioural response to trapping and temporal variation in capture probability. Models are also available for combination of these biological factors i.e. heterogeneity, time and behaviour (Karanth 1995). To establish demographically closed population, closure test was performed using software CAPTURE 2 (Otis et al. 1978; White et al. 1982; Rexstad & Burnham 1991) and CloseTest (Stanley & Burnham 1999). It uses standard X-matrix where 1 signifies capture and 0 demonstrates no capture at a particular occasion of a session. In closure test, value of p≥ 0.05 favors the null hypothesis of population closure.

Analysis of X-matrix involves comparison between competing models using a series of hypothesis tests and the results of an overall discriminant function analysis, in order to select the most appropriate abundance estimation (N-hat) model for a given data set (Otis et. al. 1978).

3.4.1 Mark-Recapture approach


The density (D-hat) of tigers in the study area was estimated by the conventional method of estimated population size (N-hat) divided by the effective sampled area (A (W)), where A (W) was estimated by creating a polygon over the trapping stations (A) and a buffer width (W) estimated as half the Mean Maximum Distance Moved (½ MMDM) ‘d’ by recaptured tigers, added to the camera trap polygon (A) (Karanth and Nichols, 1998). The Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP) is usually formed by the outermost camera traps points using GIS domain. Some areas of human dominated matrices and water reservoir (Sharda Sagar) contributed to the MCP and buffers of MMDM and ½ MMDM were actually subtracted from the calculated areas (Fig 3.3).

Table 3.1X-matrix of individual tigers (11) in Pilibhit forest division

for 40 occasions and 73 captures used in Capture, CloseTest and MARK 4.1

Tiger ID Occasions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

Figure 3.3 Camera trap locations with minimum convex polygon,

½ MMDM and full MMDM buffers (a) and with habitat

masking (b)

Density was also calculated by using computer-intensive method from trapping data (Efford 2004; Efford et al. 2004) using the software Density 4.4.5 (Efford 2009). This method relates the probability of catching an animal to the distance between its home range centre and a particular trap. The parameters of this relationship can be jointly estimated from conventional capture-recapture data by statistical procedure of simulation and inverse prediction. These calculations were performed using software Density 4.4.5 (Efford 2009). The key advantages of this method are that it removes the need to calculate the Effective trapping area, and that it provides reliable confidence intervals (Efford 2004). Habitat masking was done to subtract the human dominated matrices in calculation of density using software Density.

LegendMMDM

1/2 MMDMMCP

Trap Stations

3.4.2 Inverse Prediction Method for density

estimation


Capture-recapture studies of animal populations with camera traps inevitably have a spatial component where animals close to traps are more likely to be caught than those far away. Conventional closed-population estimates of abundance do not consider spatial components and therefore rigorous estimates of density often cannot be obtained. Maximum Likelihood method (ML) estimates of density use the capture locations to estimate animal locations and spatially-referenced capture probability. The models being likelihood-based, allow use of Akaike’s Information Criterion or other likelihood-based methods of model selection. Density is an explicit parameter, and the evaluation of its dependence on spatial or temporal covariates is therefore straightforward. Detailed methodology of ML can be accessed from Borchers & Efford 2007. Habitat mask option was used for density calculation using a shape file of the concerned area. It was performed with Density 4.4.5 software (Efford 2009).Two different files were used in Density 4.4.5 software, comprising capture recapture data along with trap ID (Table 3.2) where capture was recorded with geo-coordinates of trap stations (Table 3.3) to be used in calculation of capture probability (g0) and spatial functions (σ), respectively.

3.4.3 Maximum Likelihood method for density

estimation

©JO

SE

PH

VATTAK

AVE

N/W

WF-IN

DIA


Session ID Animal ID Occasion ID Trap ID1 1 2 191 1 7 211 1 11 181 1 12 181 1 13 181 1 16 171 1 17 191 1 22 191 1 22 231 1 26 171 1 28 221 1 29 181 1 33 171 1 39 221 2 1 171 2 1 181 2 5 171 2 6 171 2 10 171 2 11 171 2 19 171 2 19 181 2 25 181 2 31 171 2 35 171 2 40 171 3 1 161 3 12 101 3 12 71 3 13 21 3 14 41 3 22 71 3 40 31 4 13 161 5 2 41 5 7 81 5 8 41 5 12 41 5 12 81 5 14 81 5 14 71 5 20 8

Table 3.2Matrix used in Density 4.4.5


Session ID Animal ID Occasion ID Trap ID1 5 22 81 5 23 81 5 25 41 5 25 81 5 26 51 5 29 81 5 33 41 5 40 61 5 40 111 6 1 111 6 4 121 6 6 111 6 16 121 6 21 111 6 21 81 6 21 121 6 26 101 6 28 121 6 35 111 7 4 231 7 8 211 7 15 221 7 16 241 7 18 221 7 20 221 7 25 301 7 37 221 8 1 21 8 33 31 8 33 21 8 40 31 9 9 191 9 17 171 9 22 191 9 25 191 9 18 181 10 17 151 10 17 161 10 17 131 10 31 131 11 1 11 11 34 2


Camera ID Longitude Latitude1 394861.1529 3171674.5940

2 396322.2588 3169300.75603 398115.6845 3169463.48404 399881.4857 3170211.51905 397469.5474 3171325.11606 397144.9451 3173180.87707 399855.5346 3172249.29908 400849.3990 3172613.23009 398742.4338 3176290.967010 400707.9077 3176714.179011 398897.2895 3174122.774012 401965.4610 3175250.762013 404811.3456 3173491.253014 407313.7250 3173147.915015 405901.7232 3176766.454016 406036.1405 3177956.496017 407365.6787 3180700.506018 408578.6089 3178000.877019 408273.9377 3176864.479020 408737.7754 3180652.719021 410716.7537 3176269.938022 411738.4632 3176822.307023 410782.0261 3174872.118024 413830.1340 3174587.563025 414609.3027 3175742.143026 413350.6762 3172879.880027 414933.7949 3172240.360028 416011.6060 3173780.652029 417698.9068 3173288.489030 417792.9770 3169689.9690

Table 3.3Trap location file used in

Density 4.4.5


4.0RESULTS

4.1 Capture DynamicsThe total sampling effort of 1200 trap days, over 40 occasions, yielded 174 photographs (both flanks) of tigers at 23 out of the 30 trap stations (76.7% tiger photo capture success rate for trap stations) strategically placed in the 5 km² grids. 17.5% occasions harvested no captures of tigers. Number of tiger captures increased by 4% in the second quarter of the total occasions and afterward decreased by 5% and 6% in third and fourth quarter, respectively (Figure 4.1). A total of 11 tigers (> 1.5 years) were individually identified, comprising 4 males and 7 females (Figure 4.2). A tiger cub (<1 year) with mother (PFT5) and another lactating female (PFT6) were also captured. In the standard X-matrix (Table 3.1), 73 photographs were used, which were contributed by 13 captures of PMT1 (Pilibhit Male Tiger no. 1) and PFT5 (Pilibhit Female Tiger no. 5) each, 10 captures of PMT2, 8 captures of PFT6 and PFT7 each, 6 captures of PMT3, 5 captures of PFT9, 4 captures of PFT10, 3 captures of PFT8, 2 captures of PFT11 and a single capture of PMT4 which might be a floating/transient tiger. Average trapping effort was 16.4 trap days per usable capture. In the capture file for Density 4.4.5 software, 84 photographs were used (Table 3.2)

Caption

Chapter 4


Figure 4.1 Percentage of captures of

male and female in different quarters of total occasions

Figure 4.2Photographs of individual

tigers (Right & Left flanks) with a map of capture sites

PMT1 (R) PMT1 (L)

PMT1 PMT2

PMT2 (R) PMT2 (L)

PMT3 (R) PMT3 (L)

PMT3 PMT4


PMT4 (R) PMT4 (L)

PFT5 (R) PFT5 (L)

PFT5 PFT6

PFT6 (R) PFT6 (L)

PFT7 (R) PFT7 (L)


PFT7 PFT8

PFT8 (R) PFT8 (L)

PFT9 (R) PFT9 (L)

PFT9 PFT10

PFT10 (R) PFT10 (L)


PFT11 (R) PFT11 (L)

PFT11


4.2 New Capture SaturationThe number of new captures of tigers reached an asymptote on the 13th occasion of study duration of 40 occasions with 27 usable photographic captures. First and second occasion contributed 54.4% and 72.7% of new captures respectively while 7th occasion yielded 81.8% of new captures of tigers. The total no. of captures are well distributed along a linear trend line (R²=0.99). Figure 4.3 shows rate of tiger photographs and cumulative number of new captures in Pilibhit FD.

Figure 4.3Rate of tiger photographs and

cumulative number of new captures in Pilibhit FD

4.3 Closure Test and Model selectionThe closure test performed using Capture 2 supported the null hypothesis and assumes population closure (z= 2.96, p= 0.998). Closure test performed using the software CloseTest (Stanley & Burnham 1999) also supported the population closure assumption with Stanley & Burnham test (χ= 11.81, df= 6, p=0.06). Test for heterogeneity of trapping probabilities in population could not reject null hypothesis of model M(o) vs. alternate hypothesis of model M(h) (χ²= 4.73, df=3, P= 0.19) and vs. M(t) in the test for time specific variation in trapping probabilities (χ²= 26.05, df= 39, P= 0.94). In the test for behavioral response after initial capture, null hypothesis of model M(o) vs. alternate hypothesis of model M(b) was rejected (χ²= 3.72, df= 1, P= 0.05). In the goodness of fit test, null hypothesis of model M(h) vs. alternate hypothesis of model M(h) was not rejected (χ²= 52.24, df= 39, P= 0.08). M(h) model was selected as the best fit model having highest value (1) in model selection criterion and it was followed by M(o), the null model, rated second with a value 0.91. Table 4.1 summarizes selected model and criteria scores of individual models.

4.4 Tiger Population (N-hat)Population was estimated to be 12±1.50 (N-hat±SE) by the selected model and it ranges between 12 and 19 (95% Confidence Interval). This result (N-hat) was close to the number of individuals identified (Mt+1). Jackknife estimator for Mh model was selected to estimate N-hat (table 4.1). The average capture probability per occasion was found to be 0.15 (p-hat).


Model p-hat (c-hat) N-hat SE LCI UCI %CV DF Score

M(h) jackknife 0.15 12 1.50 12 19 12.48 1

M(h) Chao 0.15 12 1.32 11 19 11.02 1

M(o) 0.17 11 0.09 11 11 0.01 0.91

M(bh) 0.13 (0.25) 11 0.03 11 11 NA 0.89

M(b) 0.31 (0.15) 11 0.00 11 11 NA 0.81

Table 4.1Selected model and tiger

population with other statistics in the study area

M (t+1)= No. of individuals, n= No. of captures, p-hat= Capture probability, c-hat= Recapture probability, N-hat= Estimated tiger population, SE= Standard error, LCI= Lower value of 95% confidence interval, UCI= Upper value of 95% confidence interval, %CV= % coefficient of variation, DF= discriminant function, M (t+1)= 11, Occasions= 40, Capture #= 73

4.5 Tiger Density (D-hat)Density of the tiger in the sampled area of Pilibhit FD was estimated to be 3.86±1.20 per 100 km² (D-hat±SE) using Maximum Likelihood method (Half normal, AIC=804.64) and it ranges 2.13-7.00 (95% Confidence Interval). Estimated density and their % CV, by available models in Density 4.4.5, were similar. Half normal model was selected as best fit on the basis of lowest coefficient of variation (31.09). Percent coefficient of variation (%CV) of estimated density by uniform model using Inverse Prediction (IP) method was found to be lowest (32.60) while % CV of estimated density by half normal (38.96) and negative exponential (36.10) models were higher. Estimated density by these three models was similar. Tiger density estimated by uniform model was found to be 3.29±1.01 per 100 km² (D-hat±SE) ranging between 1.77 and 6.14 (95% CI).

Using the conventional method of Mean Maximum Distance Moved (with habitat masking), density was estimated to be 3.82±0.91 per 100 km² (3.53-6.18, 95% CI) with an effective trapping area of 314.13 km². Tiger density was found to be 4.95±1.2 per 100 km² estimated by ½ MMDM method with habitat masking and it ranges between 4.58 and 8.00 per 100 km². Effective trapping area (minus non habitat) was estimated to be 242.54 km². Percent coefficient of variation for estimated density by both the methods was almost same.

Estimated values of density by different methods and other statistics are summarized in table 4.2.

Table 4.2Tiger density and other

statistics in the study area

Density estimation method

Dens SE LCI UCI g0 SE σ SE % CV W SE ETA

ML-nh (Half normal)

3.86 1.20 2.13 7.00 0.07 0.01 2161.40 182.27 31.09

IP-nh(Uniform)

3.29 1.07 1.77 6.14 0.04 0.01 4328.24 426.60 32.60

MMDM 2.11 0.50 1.95 3.40 23.90 5.37 1.11 570.20

MMDM-nh 3.82 0.91 3.53 6.18 23.90 5.37 1.11 314.13

½ MMDM 3.42 0.83 3.17 5.53 24.28 2.69 0.56 350.56

½ MMDM-nh

4.95 1.20 4.58 8.00 24.28 2.69 0.56 242.54

Dens= density /100 km², SE= Standard error, LCI= Lower value of 95% confidence interval, UCI= Upper value of 95% confidence interval, g0= Capture probability function, σ= Spatial function, %CV= % coefficient of varia-tion, W= Buffer width in Km, ETA= Effective trapping area in km², ML-nh= Maximum likelihood-non habitat (with masking), IP-nh= Inverse prediction-non habitat, MMDM= Mean maximum distance moved – non habitat, ½ MMDM= ½ Mean maximum distance moved


5.0DISCUSSION

5.1 Capture DynamicsCapture dynamics revealed that 41% photographs were contributed by four males and remaining 7 females contributed 59% of the total usable captures. In the sampling grids, males having comparatively larger territories are more likely to encounter at least one of the trap stations. Same trend was reported by Azlan & Sharma (2003), where a single male tiger contributed 66% of the total usable photographs. Increase in the number of captures in second quarter of total occasion

may be an artifact of slight shifting of the traps on the basis of previous captures and encountered signs while decrease in number of captures in the third and fourth quarter could probably be an artifact of trap shyness (Wegge et al. 2004; Sharma et al. 2009). Movement of villagers in the study area was restricted with the help of Forest Department staff from the beginning of the reconnaissance survey to minimize the risk of camera unit theft and to increase robustness in data collection. The overall probability of capturing a tiger present in the study area (Mt+1 / N-hat) was high (91.7%), which is comparable with that reported by Sharma et al. (2008) in Kanha National Park. Only one cub with mother and one lactating female was captured as young cubs are confined to a small area and rarely accompany mothers (Chundawat, 2004).

5.2 New Capture SaturationThe curve of the cumulative number of new tiger captures stabilized on the 13th occasion, suggesting the minimum number of trap days (13) required to capture all of the individual tigers in similar habitat. Wegge et al. (2004) reported stabilization of the curve of cumulative number of new captures on the 5th day in the lowland area of Bardia National Park in intensive sampling. In the high tiger density area of Corbett National Park in the western side of Terai Arc Landscape, this curve was stabilized only on the 40th occasion (Contractor, 2007).

5.3 Closure Test and Model selectionClosure test supported the null hypothesis of population closure. Single capture of PMT4 which might be a floater and occasions with no harvesting were excluded from the matrix for closure test in the software CloseTest 3.0, though capture history of PMT4 was used for further analysis as this individual was present in the sampling area during the study duration. Population was assumed closed geographically and demographically considering that the sampling area was the biggest forest patch of the division and also considering the social organization land tenure system of tigers (Sunquist 1981; Smith 1993). Tigers less than 1 year of age were not included in the analysis.

After comparison with alternate models, Mh model was selected as it had the highest generated score followed by null model. There was no effect of time (Mt) on the capture probability for the study duration. White et al. (1982) cautions against the use of null model (Mo) if individual heterogeneity and trap response may be present.

5.4 Tiger Population (N-hat)Tiger population estimated by the models was similar (11-12) and their ranges are comparable. Although, percent coefficient of variation was slightly lower for the estimate given by Mh (Chao), but owing to the robustness of the Mh (jackknife) estimate, it was used for other parameters (Karanth & Nichols 2002; Karanth et al. 2004; Sharma et al. 2009). Average capture probability per occasion was fairly high

Chapter 5


and overall probability of missing an individual was low (8.3%). The interval estimated by M(0), Mb and M(bh) models are likely to be an artifact of disparity in individual capture rate which are influenced by age, sex, size and position of ranges in relation to traps among other ecological factors. These sampling uncertainties are often the cause of assumption violations. The estimated population in Pilibhit, when compared to other reserves in the Terai Arc landscape, was lower than that of Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary (18±4.2 per 100 km², N-hat±SE) and it was similar to that estimated in Dudhwa National Park and Katerniaghat WLS (14±1.2, 14±2.73, respectively) while it was also lower than that estimated in Corbett National Park, 19±0.54 (Jhala et al. 2008). Tiger population estimated in Pilibhit FD was higher than that of Valmiki Tiger Reserve, at 3±1.1 per 100 km² (Jhala et al. 2008).

5.5 Tiger Density (D-hat)Density estimation of tigers in the wild is critically important for scientific and management purposes. Density estimated for tigers in the study area by different methods was more or less similar. Inverse Prediction (IP) method’s estimate was higher than that estimated by conventional Mean Maximum Distance Moved (MMDM without habitat masking) and lower than that estimated by ½ MMDM (without and with masking) and MMDM (with masking). The conventional parameterization of closed population models in terms of N (population) and p (capture probability) often remains incomplete due to negligence of space used. IP method uses an alternative and different approach to fit a model to the trapping data that includes both density D and a spatial model of the trapping process (Efford, 2004). The basic concept is that if a trap is moved from an animals’ home range centre, it becomes less likely to catch the animal. The relationship is based on the detection function with parameters g(0), which is the probability of capture in a trap at the home range centre and σ (the spatial scale over which capture probability declines). The search for parameter estimates (D, g(0), σ) that best match the field data is formalized in a procedure called Inverse Prediction (Pledger & Efford 1998; Efford, 2004). While density estimated by Maximum Likelihood method is higher than that estimated by IP method it is similar to that estimated by conventional MMDM (with masking) method. Spatially explicit Maximum Likelihood method estimates of density use the capture locations to estimate animal locations and spatially-referenced capture probability. The models being likelihood-based, allow use of Akaike’s Information Criterion or other likelihood-based methods of model selection. Density is an explicit parameter, and the evaluation of its dependence on spatial or temporal covariates is therefore straightforward. Additional (nonspatial) variation in capture probability was modelled as in conventional capture-recapture. The method can also test by simulation, using a model in which capture probability depends only on location relative to traps (Borchers & Efford, 2007). Density estimated by ML method may be considered most close to natural density of the tigers as it was almost equal to that estimated by MMDM (with masking). Density estimated by MMDM method for tigers in Kanha (Sharma et al. 2009), for jaguars Panthera onca (Soisalo & Cavalcanti 2006) and as reported by Dillon & Kelly (2008) for oceolots Leopardus pardalis was found close to actual densities. These studies compared results obtained by MMDM method with that estimated using radio-telemetry.

Tiger density estimated in Pilibhit FD by ½ MMDM (with masking) method was higher than that of Valmiki National Park (1.49±0.52 per 100 km², D-hat±SE) and Dudhwa National Park (4.91±0.31) and it was comparable with that of Kishanpur WLS (6.23±0.76) and Katerniaghat WLS (5.01±0.52), while it was much lower than that estimated in Corbett National Park, 19±0.54 per 100 km² (Jhala et al. 2008).


MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONSThis study provides a good estimate of the tiger density in the study area of Pilibhit forest division, which is

also comparable with some of the better Protected Areas of India. This breeding population in Pilibhit is also likely to be serving as a source for the Surai range of Terai East FD in Uttarakhand state, forests of North Kheri and South Kheri FDs. Decrease in anthropogenic pressure on this forest and an increase in protection level in this division would ensure the long term survival of this tiger population. Preservation and restoration of the corridor area between Shuklaphanta in Nepal and Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary via Laggabagga block and Haripur range of this division would facilitate movement of tigers between these reserves and exchange of genes. This study accounted for the presence of various ungulates in the study area such as chital, sambar, muntjac, hog deer, swamp deer, nilgai, wild pig and even four horned antelope (Annexure 2). The presence of four horned antelope was uncertain before this study and is probably the first record for the area (Krishna et al. 2009). Six random sightings of swamp deer (total 13 individuals) in the study duration show that Pilibhit harbours a small population of this endangered deer. These ungulates which serve as a prey base for tigers needs protection to proliferate and survive as a viable population in this division. Camera trapping was successful in producing photographic records of 11 individual tigers along with its co-predators, lesser carnivores, primates, ungulates, reptiles and birds. The study also recorded and obtained the first photographs of rusty spotted cat from Pilibhit, extending its distributional range. We suggest periodic monitoring of tigers and co-predators using such robust techniques in Pilibhit and more such potential areas in this landscape. Considering the biodiversity rich (Annexure 1, 2, 3 & 4) habitat of Pilibhit FD, fairly good tiger density, including breeding tigers, and its connectivity to other critical forest blocks in this landscape, we recommend enhancing the protection and status of this reserve forest at the earliest.

This report provides the first baseline estimates of tigers from Pilibhit and recommends enhancing the protection and status of this critical forest patch.

Tigress with cubs

Chapter 6

©JO

SE

PH

VATTAK

AVE

N/W

WF-IN

DIA

Annon. 2010. National Tiger Conservation Authority. http://www.projecttiger.nic.in/yearofcreation.asp

Annon. 2010. National Wildlife Data base Cell, Wildlife Institute of India. http://oldwww.wii.gov.in/nwdc/index.html

Azlan M.J. & S.K. Sharma. 2003. Camera trapping the indochinese tiger, Panthera tigris corbetti, in a secondary forest in peninsular malaysia. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 51(2): 421-427.

Borchers D.L. & M.G. Efford. 2007. Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture-recapture studies, Biometrics online early doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00927.x

Chundawat R.S. 2004. The life of tiger. Territorial changeover. In Tiger: the ultimate guide: 46–78. Thapar V. (Ed.).New York: CDS Books.

Contractor D. 2007. Evaluating the effect of design and sampling intensity on estimating tiger population and density. M. Sc. Dissertation, Saurashtra University, Gujarat. 69 pp.

Cooch E. & G.C. White. 2006. Program MARK: A gentle introduction.4th edition. www.phidot.org/software/mark/docs/book/

Dillon A. & M.J. Kelly. 2008. Ocelot home range, overlap and density: comparing radio telemetry with camera trapping. Journal of Zoology 275: 391–398.

Efford M.G. 2004. Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106: 598-610.

Efford M.G. 2009. DENSITY 4.4: software for spatially explicit capture–recapture. Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. http://www.otago.ac.nz/density.

Efford M.G. Dawson D.K. & C.S. Robbins. 2004. Density: software for analysing capture-recapture data from passive detector arrays. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 217-228.

Graham K., Beckerman A.P. & S. Thirgood. 2005. Human–predator–prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biological Conservation 122: 159–171.

Griffiths M. & C.P. van Schaik. 1993. The impact of human traffic on the abundance and activity periods of Sumatran rainforest wildlife. Conservation Biology 7: 623-626.

Jhala Y.V., Gopal R. & Q. Qureshi (Eds). 2008. Status of tigers, copredators and prey in India. Dehradun: National Tiger Conservation Authority & Wildlife Institute of India. TR08/001. 164pp.

Johnsingh A.J.T. & A.S. Negi. 2003. Status of tiger and leopard in Rajaji-Corbett Conservation Unit, northern India. Biological Conservation 111: 385-393.

Johnsingh A.J.T., Ramesh K., Qureshi Q., David A., Goyal S. P., Rawat G.S., Rajapandian K. & S. Prasad. 2004. Conservation status of tiger and associated species in the Terai Arc Landscape, India. Wildlife Institute of India, India.

Karanth K.U. 1995. Estimating tiger (Panthera tigris) populations from camera trapping data using capture-recapture models. Biological Conservation. 71: 333-338.

Karanth K.U. & J.D. Nichols. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities using Photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79(8): 2852-2862.

Karanth K. U. & J.D. Nichols. 2002. Monitoring tiger and their prey: A Manual for Researchers, Managers and Conservationists in Tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife Studies, India.

Karanth K.U. & J.D. Nichols. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79: 2852–2862.

Karanth K.U., Chundawat R.S., Nichols J.D. & N.S. Kumar. 2004. Estimation of tiger densities in the tropical dry forests of Panna, Central India, using photographic capture–recapture sampling. Animal Conservation 7: 285–290.

REFERENCES

Karanth K.U., Nichols J.D., Kumar S. & J.E. Hines. 2006. Assessing tiger population dynamics using photographic capture-recapture sampling. Ecology 87(11): 2925-2937.

Krishna Y.C., Clyne P.J., Krishnaswamy J. & S.K. Narayanarao. 2009. Distributional and ecological review of the four horned antelope, Tetracerus quadricornis. Mammalia 73: 1-6.

McDougal C. 1977. The Face of the Tiger. Rivington Books, London.

Moultrie Feeders, Alabama. http://www.moultriefeeders.com

O’Brien T.G., Kinnaird M.F. & H.T. Wibisono. 2003. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation 6: 131–139.

Otis D.L., Burnham K.P., White G.C. & D.R. Anderson. 1978. Statistical inference from capture data of closed populations. Wildlife Monographs 2: 1- 13.

Pledger, S. & M. Efford. 1998. Correction of bias due to heterogeneous capture probability in capture–recapture studies of open populations. Biometrics 54: 888–898.

Pollock, K.H., Nichols J.D., C. Brownie & J.E. Hines. 1990. Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107.

Qureshi Q., Gopal R., Kyatham S., Basu S., Mitra A. & Y.V. Jhala. 2006. Evaluating tiger habitat at the tehsil level. TR-06/001, Project tiger directorate, Govt. of India and Wildlife Institute of India, India.

Rexstad E. & K. P. Burnham. 1991. User’s guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Fort Collins.

Sanderson E., Forrest J., Loucks C., Ginsberg J., Dinerstein E., Seidensticker J., Leimgruber P., Songer M., Heydlauff A., O’Brien T., Bryja G., Klenzendorf S. & E. Wikramanayake. 2006. Setting Priorities for the Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005–2015. The Technical Assessment., Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund, Smithsonian, and Save the Tiger Fund, Washington, D.C.

Schaller G.B. 1967. The deer and the tiger. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Illinois.U.S.A.

Seidensticker, J., Christie S. & P. Jackson. 1999. Preface. In Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes: xv–xix. Seidensticker, J., S. Christie and P. Jackson. (Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sharma R.K., Jhala Y.V., Qureshi Q., Vittakaven J., Gopal R. & K. Nayak. 2009. Evaluating capture-recapture population and density estimation of tigers in a population with known parameters. Animal Conservation 2009: 1-10.

Smith J.L.D. 1993. The role of dispersal in structuring the Chitwan tiger population. Behaviour 124: 165-195.

Soisalo M.K. & S.M.C. Cavalcanti. 2006. Estimating the density of a jaguar population in the Brazilian Pantanal using camera-traps and capture-recapture sampling in combination with GPS radio-telemetry. Biological Conservation 129: 487-496.

Stanley T.R. & K.P. Burnham. 1999. A closure test for time specific capture–recapture data. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 6: 197–209.

Sunquist M.E. 1981. Social organization of tigers (Panthera tigris) in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 336: 1-98

Trolle M. & M. Kery. 2003. Estimation of Ocelot density in the pantanal using capture-recapture analysis of camera-trapping data. Journal of Mammalogy 84: 607-614.

Wang S.W. & D.W. Macdonald. 2006. Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation 129, 558–565.

Wegge P., Pokheral C. & S. R. Jnawali. 2004. Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies. Animal Conservation 7: 251-256.

White G.C., Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P. & D.L. Otis. 1982. Capture recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. LA-8787-NERP, Los Alamos Nat. Lab., Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.

Wikramanayake E., McKnight M., Dinerstein E., Joshi A., Gurung B. & D. Smith. 2004. Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in Human-Dominated environments. Conservation Biology 18: 839-844.


ANNEXURE 1 Pictures of other important carnivores captured in camera traps

Leopard Fishing cat

Jungle cat Sloth bear

Rusty spotted cat Otters

ANNEXURE 2 Activity Pattern of tiger and leopard in Pilibhit forest division from Camera trap captures

The activity periods of tigers and leopards as indicated by their capture in camera trap stations during 22nd May to 30th June, 2010 was also analyzed. Data was filtered on the basis of date, time and camera ID imprinted on the photographs. A total of 97 and 15 photographs of tiger and leopard, respectively, were used. Leopards were captured more during the early hours of morning and peaks around 06:00 hours while movement of tiger peaks at 04.00 hours and then decreases. Leopards were also captured more in the early evening hours. An increase in tiger movement probably resulted in a decrease in leopard activity level between 19:00-23.00 hours. There were no captures of tigers or leopards during 08:00-17:00 hours. (Fig.1)

Fig. 1: Activity pattern of tiger and leopard in Pilibhit FD during 22nd May to 30th June, 2010 from camera trap captures.


ANNEXURE 3 Pictures of ungulates captured in camera traps

Chital Hog Deer Muntjac

Swamp deer Wild pig Sambar

Nilgai Four horned antelope


ANNEXURE 4 Pictures of birds captured in camera traps

Lesser adjutant stork Indian peafowl

Red jungle fowl Red vented bulbul

Green bee-eater Oriental magpie robin


ANNEXURE 5 Pictures of some of the mammals and reptile captured in camera traps

Hanuman langur Rhesus macaque

Common palm civet Small Indian civet

Indian porcupine Rufus tailed hare


Ratel Jackal

Grey mongoose Monitor lizard

ANNEXURE 6 Geo-coordinates of trap stations in Pilibhit forest division (Datum: WGS 84)

Camera ID Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss)1 28 40 05.0 79 55 20.52 28 39 00.5 79 56 17.03 28 38 52.2 79 57 20.04 28 39 20.8 79 58 29.45 28 39 55.0 79 56 56.96 28 40 54.7 79 56 45.37 28 40 24.6 79 58 24.18 28 40 47.4 79 59 12.19 28 42 36.0 79 57 41.710 28 42 51.6 79 58 53.811 28 41 25.6 79 57 48.012 28 42 00.3 79 59 44.013 28 41 07.0 80 01 26.614 28 40 56.3 80 02 34.915 28 42 53.2 80 02 10.816 28 44 10.9 80 02 21.517 28 44 58.4 80 02 59.818 28 43 34.3 80 03 44.519 28 42 57.5 80 03 33.120 28 44 09.7 80 04 29.221 28 42 38.4 80 05 03.622 28 42 57.1 80 05 41.123 28 41 49.6 80 05 07.024 28 41 59.4 80 06 42.125 28 42 22.5 80 07 26.926 28 40 47.9 80 06 41.727 28 40 28.7 80 07 40.028 28 41 20.3 80 08 18.329 28 41 02.9 80 09 24.430 28 39 54.9 80 08 27.6

ANNEXURE 7 Scientific names of carnivores, ungulates, reptile, birds and other mammals captured in camera traps

Species Scientific name IUCN status WPA (Schedule)(Carnivores)Common leopard Panthera pardus Lower risk ICommon palm civet

Paradourus hermaphroditus Lower risk II

Fishing cat Prionailurus viverrinus Vulnerable IRusty spotted cat Prionailurus rubiginosus Vulnerable IJackal Canis aureus Lower risk IIJungle cat Felis chaus Lower risk IIRatel Mellivora capensis Lower risk ISloth bear Melursus ursinus Vulnerable ISmall Indian civet Viverricula indica Lower risk IISmooth coated otter

Lutrogale perspicillata Vulnerable I

(Others) Indian porcupine Hystrix indica Lower risk IVGrey mongoose Herpestes edwardsiiHanuman langur Semnopithecus entellus Lower risk IIRhesus macaque Macaca mulata Lower risk IIRufus tailed hare Lepus nigricollis(Ungulates)Chital Axis axis Lower risk IIIFour horned ante-lope

Tetracerus quadricornis Vulnerable I

Hog deer Axis porcinus Lower risk IIIMuntjac Muntiacus muntjak Lower risk IIINilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus Lower risk IIISambar Cervus unicolor Lower risk IIISwamp deer Cervus duvaucelii Vulnerable IWild pig Sus scrofa Lower risk III(Reptile)Monitor lizard Varanus bengalensis Endangered I

Common name (Birds) Scientific nameBlack francolin Francolinus francolinusLesser adjutant Leptoptilos javanicusIndian peafowl Pavo cristatusRed jungle fowl Gallus gallusRed vented bulbul Pycnonotus caferGreen bee-eater Merops orientalisOriental magpie robin Copsychus saularisIndian nightjar Caorimulgus affinisRufous treepie Dendrocitta vagabundaLesser racket-tailed drongo Dicrurus remiferEmerald dove Chalcophaps indicaBlack-rumped flameback Dinopium benghalense

ANNEXURE 8 Scientific names of carnivores, ungulates, reptile, birds and other mammals captured in camera traps

continued...


ANNEXURE 9 Study at a glance

Camera testing Tiger pugmark Tiger Scat Tiger Rake marks

GPS Point Collection GIS work Grid map Pole fitting

Station clearing Deployed camera Spider web in lens Disturbed camera

Regular monitoring FD support Final downloading Visual documentation

Using Capture 2 CloseTest 3 MARK 4.1 Density 4.4.5

WWFINDIA.ORGIND

STATUS OF TIGERS IN PILIBHIT FOREST DIVISION

© 1986 Panda Symbol WWF-World Wide Fnd For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)WWF-India Secretariat172-B Lodi EstateNew Delhi 110003Tel: 011 4150 4814 Fax: 011 4150 4779

Number of camera trap stations setup for a total of 1200 trap days to estimate the tiger population in sampled area of Pilibhit Forest Division

30 camera trap stationsThe number of individual tigers identified in the sampled area

Estimated density of tigers in the sampled area

Study recorded the first photos of the smallest wildcat-rusty spotted cat from the Terai Arc Landscape extending its distributional range

11 tigers

4.95/100 km2 Rusty spotted cat

status of tigers in pilibhit forest divisionawsassets.wwfindia.org/downloads/status_of_tigers...mr....

Documents