The Asian Elephant in Uttarakhand: Population Distribution and Status

Estimation of Elephant Population and its Distribution between the Yamuna and Sarada Rivers in Uttarakhand

Surendra Varma and R. Sukumar

Suggested Citation: Varma, S., and Sukumar, R. (2012). The Asian Elephant in Uttarakhand: Population Distribution and Status; Estimation of Elephant Population and its Distribution between the Yamuna and Sarada Rivers in Uttarakhand, Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (ANCF), Innovation Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore & Uttarakhand Forest Department (UFD), No 5, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. The Asian Elephant in Uttarakhand: Population Distribution and Status

Estimation of Elephant Population and its Distribution between the Yamuna and Sarada Rivers in Uttarakhand

Surendra Varma1 and R. Sukumar1&2

With inputs from M.S. Nishant3, Meghana S. Kulkarni 2, Mane Mira Baban 2, K. G Avinash1, Sandeep Pulla 2, Nachiketha S.R2 and K.D. Kandpal4

1: Asian Nature Conservation Foundation, Innovation Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka 2: Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka 3: RMV Second Stage, Dollar‟s Colony, Bangalore, 560096. Karnataka 4: WWF-India, Near Van Nigam Office, Ward No 1, Kaladhungi, Nanital, 263140, Uttarakhand

Published jointly by

Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (ANCF) Innovation Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - 560 012, India www.asiannature.org

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden Uttarakhand Forest Department (UFD), No 5, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001

Title: The Asian Elephant in Uttarakhand: Population Distribution and Status Authors: Surendra Varma & R. Sukumar

Published by ANCF/UFD ISBN 978-81-909731-4-4

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this publication for an educational or non-commercial purpose is permitted provided the source is fully acknowledged and appropriate credit is given. Reproduction of material for commercial purposes is permissible only with the written permission of the copyright holders. Application for such permission should be addressed to the publishers.

To order a copy of this publication, please write to

Publications Officer Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (ANCF) Innovation Centre, Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 560 012, India Email:[email protected]

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden Uttarakhand Forest Department (UFD), No 5, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001, India Email: [email protected]

Prof. R. Sukumar Centre for Ecological Sciences Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka-560012, India Email: [email protected]

Title of the Project Population estimate of the Asian elephant in Uttarakhand by indirect (dung) count method

Implemented for Uttarakhand Forest Department1

By Asian Nature Conservation Foundation2

Project Coordinator Mr. D.V.S. Khati, IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests1a

Advisors Mr. S.S. Sharma, IFS, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden1

Mr. D.V.S. Khati, IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests1a

Mr. Param Jit Singh, IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests1b

Mr. S.P. Subudhi, IFS, Director, Conservator Forests & Nodal Officer - Shivalik Elephant Reserve1c

Field Investigators Mr. M.S.Nishant3, Mr. Nachiketha S.R4, Mr. Arjun Anavangote 5, Mr. Krishna Hanse 5 Mr. Ben Teron5, Mr. Mohan Chandra Joshi4 Mr. S. B. Datta2, Mr. Shah Mohammed Belal 6 Dr. K. D Kandpal6 and Mr. Surendra Varma2

Research Team Mr. M.S. Nishant3, Ms Meghana S. Kulkarni 4, Ms Mane Mira Baban 4, Mr. Sandeep Pulla4 and Mr. Surendra Varma2

GIS Support Dr. K.G. Avinash2

Editorial Support Mr. Vikram Nanjappa2

Co-investigator Mr. Surendra Varma2

Principal Investigator Dr. R. Sukumar Managing Trustee2 & Chairman4

1: Uttarakhand Forest Department, No 5, Chandrabani, Dehra Dun, Uttarakhand-248001 1a: Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF) Garhwal, 85, Rajpur Road, Dehra Dun, Uttarakhand-248001 1b: CCF Kumaon, Glenthorn, Mallital, Nainital, Uttarakhand-263001 1c: Rajaji National Park, 5/1 Ansari Road, Dehra Dun, Uttarakhand-248001 2: Asian Nature Conservation Foundation, c/o Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka-560 012 3: RMV Second Stage, Dollar‟s Colony, Bangalore, 560096. Karnataka 4: Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka-560 012 5: Wildlife Trust of India, F-13, Sector-8, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 6: WWF- India, Near Van Nigam Office, Ward No. 1, Kaladhungi, Uttarakhand-263140

Contents Preface 1 Acknowledgement 3

Executive Summary 5

1. Introduction & Objectives 2.Study area 9 The landscape 13 Physical features 14 Elevation, major river system and seasons 14 Forest types and faunal diversity 14 3.Methods 14 Background 19 Dung decay rate experiment 20 Dung density estimation 20 Determination of elephant distribution area 28 4.Data processing 31 Part 1: Decay rate, defecation rate, dung density and elephant distribution area 32 Decay and defecation rates 32 Elephant dung density 32 Elephant density 32 Elephant distribution based on information from field Staff 33 Elephant distribution based on Kernel Density Estimator 33 Elephant distribution in relation to elevation range 33 Part II: Dung density estimates: Selection of cut-off width, perpendicular distance class intervals (bin) and model selection using data from Rajaji National Park as an example 33 Cut off width 33 Class intervals (bin) 34 Model selection 36 5.Results & discussion 39 5a. Elephant dung decay rate for Uttarakhand 40 Marking dung piles 41 Assessing the status of dung piles marked 41 Dung decay rate 42 5b. Elephant densities and numbers for Uttarakhand 47 Transect and microhabitats covered 48 Profiles of transects 48 Microhabitats sampled 48 Estimated elephant population for different divisions 50 Encounter rate of dung piles for each division 50 Truncation distance used and model selected 50 Elephant distribution area, density and population numbers for different divisions 54 Elephant density and numbers for different zones 58 Elephant density and numbers estimated for entire Uttarakhand 60 Optimal model parameters and dung density for Uttarakhand 60 Elephant numbers for Uttarakhand 61 Lessons leant from estimating elephant numbers using indirect (dung) count method 63 Recommendations 63 5c. Elephant distribution area 65 Background 66 Elephant distribution area based on knowledge of field staff 66 Elephant distribution Based on Kernel Density Estimator 69 Comparison of results of field staff knowledge and Kernel density estimator 69 Elephant distribution and density 69 Elephant distribution in relation to different elevation ranges in Uttarakhand 70 6. Elephant density and distribution for different forest divisions in Uttarakhand 72 Dehradun 73 Haridwar 75 Rajaji National Park 77 Lansdowne 79 Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) 81 Ramnagar 83 Terai West 85 Terai Central 87 Terai East 89 Haldwani 91 Champawat 93 7. Training programme and capacity building in estimating elephant numbers conducted for forest officials from Uttarakhand 95 Background 96 Training–Theory 99 Training-Practice 100 Training and practical sessions for researchers 103 8. References 105 Appendixes 109 Appendix 1: 110 Models that are used for selection of robust estimator for Rajaji National Park Appendix 2: 112 Guidelines for estimating population of Asian elephants in Uttarakhand using an indirect method (Instruction manual for researchers) Appendix 3: 117 Experience of participating in population estimation of Asian Elephant in Uttarakhand

Preface

In spite of elephants being large-bodied creatures, estimating elephant numbers can be surprisingly challenging. However, the management of elephants in a region would benefit considerably if details of their numbers, population demography and structure are available. Across the range of Asian elephant distribution in India, there have been regular exercises since the 1970s by the state forest departments to “census” the elephant populations, but some of these exercises have not been based on rigorous scientific methods, though they provided minimum estimates of the elephant numbers. Statistical sampling methods allow inferences of population trends estimates made across seasons and years.

Several sampling methods, including direct count using line transects, direct counts using sample blocks, indirect (dung) counts using line transects, mark-recapture using individually identified animals (either directly or through DNA-based methods), have been in vogue in recent years, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. The most appropriate scientific method of estimating elephant numbers would be site-specific and depend on trained manpower (researchers, wildlife staff) and financial resources available. At sites where elephant densities are low and the visibility of animals in the forests is poor, it is generally expected that population estimation using line transect indirect (dung) count may be the most feasible.

There have been wide fluctuations and inconsistencies in elephant numbers estimated in the past for Uttarakhand. This prompted the Uttarakhand Forest Department to go for an appropriate sampling technique for estimating elephant numbers for the state. Uttarakhand Forest Department (UFD) invited the Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (ANCF) to execute a study on population estimation of the Asian elephant by the indirect (dung) count method. During initial interactions with UFD officials, the need for estimating elephant numbers through indirect (dung) count was reviewed and discussions on estimating elephant dung decay rate, dung defecation rate, dung density and elephant distribution area were conducted between the team members of the forest department and ANCF.

As a result, the Chief Wildlife Warden of the state formed a joint UFD-ANCF team that was to visit various locations starting from the Yamuna River to the Sarada River, to conduct a preliminary landscape reconnaissance and region-wise training programmes for the forest staff of Uttarakhand on estimating elephants by indirect (dung) count in September 2011. Between October 2011 and February 2012 the forest staff were engaged in conducting dung decay rate experiments. This was followed during the third week of February 2012 with four more training programmes on estimating elephant dung density through the line transect method. The data obtained on dung decay rate and elephant dung density were brought under rigorous data processing protocols, resulting in outputs on elephant distribution, density and numbers of elephant for each forest division with statistical confidence limits.

This exercise generated for the first time details on elephant distribution for each beat, range, division and for the entire state. Further, it was also a learning experience on the possible limitation of the present protocol for estimating elephant numbers through the dung count method; indeed, with hindsight we can now confidently suggest a modified protocol for this exercise in order to obtain a more accurate estimate of the elephant population of the state. In addition to these benefits, about 250 forest department staff starting from Chief Conservator of Forests to forest watchers were exposed to different components of both the theory and practice of estimating elephant numbers.

We also demonstrated that the indirect count exercise could be completed in about 40 days of actual field involvement by the forest staff. For the first time, the landscape-level status of elephants in Uttarakhand is known and this would help in conservation planning.

Surendra Varma and R. Sukumar Bangalore, December 2012

Acknowledgements

This investigation of the population number and distribution area of the Asian Elephant in Uttarakhand was made possible with the support provided by the Uttarakhand Forest Department.

We are grateful to Mr. S. S Sharma (Principal Chief Conservator of Forests –PCCF- Wildlife & Chief Wildlife Warden-CWLW), Mr. D.V.S Khati (Chief Conservator of Forests, Garhwal), Mr. Param Jit Singh (CCF, Kumaon), Mr. D.N. Semwal (Conservator of Forests, North Kumaon Circle), Mr. J.S. Suhag (CF-Shivalik Circle), Mr. S. P Subudhi (Director, Rajaji National Park), Mr. Ranjan Kumar Mishra, (Field Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR), Dr. R S. Bist (Conservator, Western Kumaon Circle), Ms. Meenakshi Joshi, (Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun), Mr. Sanatan (DFO, Haridwar), Mr. Shrawan Kumar (Deputy Director, Rajaji NP), Mr. Narender Singh Chowdhury (DFO, Lansdowne FD), Mr. Surendra Kumar (DFO Kalagarh FD), Mr. C. K. Kavidyal (DD, CTR), Mr. P. S. Srivastav (DFO, Ramnagar), Mr. Nishant Verma (DFO Terai West), Mr. P.K. Patro (DFO, Terai East), Dr. S. P. Singh (DFO, Terai Central), Mr. Amit Verma (DFO, Haldwani) and Mr. S. P. Singh (DFO, Champawat).

Sub-divisional Officers (SDO), Range Officers and field staff from Rajaji and Corbett National Parks, Dehradun, Haridwar, Lansdowne, Kalagarh, Ramnagar, Terai West, Terai East, Terai Central, Haldwani, and Champawat Forest Divisions provided valuable support in the field.

Special thanks are due to Dr. Shrikant Chandola, former PCCF (Wildlife) & CWLW, Uttarakhand, Mr. Vinod Rishi, former Addl. Director General of Forests and Director, Project Elephant, Mr. S.S. Rasaily, IFS- CF-and former Director, Rajaji NP, Mrs. Neha Verma, IFS Forest Silviculturalist, Mr. Akash Verma, IFS (Probationer), Mr. Pankaj Kumar, IFS (Probationer), Mr. GS Karki, SDO, Kalagarh Sub-division, Mr. U.C. Tewari, Park warden, CTR, Mr. V. S. Tomar, Park warden, Rajaji National Park, Mr. Bharat Singh, SDO, Dehradun, K. S Rawat, SDO, Haridwar, J. S Rawat, SDO, Lansdowne and Mr, P. C. Arya, SDO, Haldwani, for their personal involvement and interest in the investigation.

Dr. A. Christy Williams, WWF Asian Elephant and Rhino Program, Nepal, ensured the active participation of the WWF-Uttarakhand team in this investigation. The team members Dr. Harish Guleria, Dr. K. D Kandpal, Mr. Saha Mohammed Belal, Mr. Meraj Anwar, Ms. Rekha Warrier, Ms. Rohini Mann, Mr. Chandra Singh, and Mr. D. Roy Chowdhary, WWF-India, Uttarakhand participated in the training programmes (as participants as well as resource persons) and also in the data collection in some divisions.

Wildlife Trust of India (WTI), Noida UP, deputed some of their researchers for the survey, and our sincere thanks are due to Mr. Vivek Menon, Executive Director (WTI) and Dr. N.V.K Ashraf (Chief of Conservation, WTI). Mr. Arjun Anavangote, Mr. Krishna Hanse, and Mr. Ben Teron from WTI participated in the line transect survey; Mr. Sumanto Kundu participated in the training programme for the forest officials conducted at Ramnagar.

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, opened its doors to provide valued scientific and logistic support and we thank Dr. S. Sathyakumar and Dr. K. Sankar for their support. This collaboration with different institutions helped us gain and share knowledge on both the landscape as well as the methods of estimation of elephant numbers.

Dr. Soumya Prasad (Research Associate at Centre for Ecological Sciences) and Dr. Raman Kumar (Research Associate, National Centre for Biological Sciences –NCBS) of Bangalore and Mr. C.M. Bipin, Research biologist, WII, Dehradun, provided valuable support. Mr. S.B. Datta coordinated a part of the investigation. Mr. Thomas Mathew and Mr. Vikram Nanjappa offered editorial support and Mrs. Sunanda Varma and Sujata S. R., provided critical information and inputs on some sections of the document.

Executive Summary

Uttarakhand State falls under the North-West elephant distribution range in India, part of the Shivalik Elephant Range of Project Elephant (Bist 2002). Although a number of past estimations of the elephant population of this Elephant Range (or that of a particular forest division) are available (Singh 1969, Singh 1978, Johnsingh et al. 1990, Sunderraj et al. 1995, Williams 2007), rigorous scientific methods have not been used so far to estimate elephant densities and numbers across Uttarakhand.

The objective of this study was to produce a high-resolution map of elephant distribution in Uttarakhand and to estimate elephant densities by the line transect, indirect dung count method, thereby providing an estimate of elephant numbers in the state.

The study was carried out in the area extending between the Yamuna and Sarada rivers. The region has four distinct land forms – the Shivalik hills, the Doon valley, and the Bhabar and Terai tracts. This landscape is a storehouse of biodiversity, and the geographic features along with seasonality and vegetation strongly influence the distribution and density of elephants.

In 2012, at the request of the Uttarakhand Forest Department, estimation of elephant numbers for Uttarakhand was carried out in 11 forest divisions (out of 12 „elephant divisions‟ in the state). The forest divisions were categorized under four zones – Zone I comprised Dehradun FD, Haridwar FD and West of Rajaji NP; Zone II comprised East of Rajaji NP and Lansdowne FD; Zone III comprised Corbett TR (Kalagarh FD, Sonanadi WLS, Corbett NP) and Ramnagar FD; and Zone IV comprised Haldwani FD, Terai West FD, Terai East FD and Champawat FD.

Elephant distribution area was determined through two approaches, one based on interviews and interactions with field staff and the second based on Kernel Density Estimator (Hooge & Eichenlaub 1999; 2000) using encounter rates of dung along transect lines.

The line transect indirect (dung) count method (Burnham et al. 1980; Buckland et al. 1993; Barnes 1996; Barnes et al. 1997; Barnes and Dunn 2002) was used to arrive at elephant density in the various forest divisions of Uttarakhand. This method incorporates estimates of elephant dung density, daily dung decay rate and daily defecation rates to estimate elephant density. This figure is then translated into elephant numbers using data on habitat area actually used by elephants (elephant distribution) in each forest division.

A total of 281 fresh dung piles were marked for estimating the dung decay rate using the retrospective method recommended by CITES/MIKE (Hedges & Lawson 2006). Dung piles that were marked were visited to assess their status, and were classified into two categories: Present –P; and Absent – A. Visits were made to all dung piles marked from 145 days (first marking) earlier to 24 days (last marking) earlier to the mid-point of the line transect exercise. Out of 281 dung piles marked, only 18 (6.4%) of them completely decayed by this time.

The mean time for decay of a dung pile, calculated using the estimated regression coefficent, was 267 days (or a daily decay rate of 0.004). The decay rate appeared to be very slow with only 20% of initially marked dung piles having decayed until the mid-point of the line transect exercise. As against this MIKE norms estimate that about 90% of the dung piles should have decayed before initiating dung density estimation. The use of this low decay rate figure may thus not be sufficiently robust for accurately estimating elephant density (and could potentially result in an underestimation of the elephant numbers).

For estimating elephant dung density, each forest division was divided into grids size of 20 km2 each using a Geographical Information System (GIS). Depending on the area of specific forest “beats”, about 3 to 4 beats fell within a single 20 km2 grid. One km long transects were planned in each grid. A total of 227 transects covering a total of 224.4 km were walked by forest department staff accompanied by researchers. A total of 4371 observations were made in these transects and a subset of 4241 dung piles were used for data processing (extreme outliers were removed to increase the precision of the dung density estimate). Dung encounter rate of 18.9/km was estimated (range: 3 to 51 dung piles/km) across the divisions.

Data were analysed for three geographical categories a) Forest Division wise, b) Zone wise and c) State of Uttarakhand by pooling data for 11 elephant forest divisions. The encounter rate of dung piles for Corbett National Park is the maximum and it is the least for Haldwani Forest Division. However, the estimated dung density is highest for Lansdowne Forest Division followed by Kalagarh FD, Corbett and Rajaji National Parks, and Ramnagar FD. The dung density estimates for Terai Forest Divisions and Haldwani FD were low.

The high density estimated for Lansdowne and Kalagarh could be due to a sampling bias because only a small proportion of the total area in Lansdowne was sampled during the exercise, using transects of only about 100m average length. In Kalagarh the transects appeared to cover only open areas which are known to harbor high elephant density. These sampling biases skewed the estimate of the total population number for Uttarakhand.

As Lansdowne FD is sandwiched between the high density regions of Corbett and Rajaji NPs, and Kalagarh FD adjoins Corbett NP, the average density estimated from Rajaji and Corbett NPs was used for estimating elephant density and numbers for Lansdowne and Kalagarh Forest Divisions.

Until the time of data processing, the data for Terai Central FD were not available for analysis; however, an assumption was made that the elephant density for this division would represent the average of the surrounding four forest divisions (that worked out to 0.1 elephants/km2). Based on these corrections and assumptions, the estimates of the elephant population division-wise and for the state are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Elephant density and numbers estimated for different forest divisions in Uttarakhand

A: Estimate of elephant density and numbers division-wise Elephant Elephant Lower Upper distributio Mean no. Lower Upper Forest density limit limit n area of limit limit Divisions (per km2) (1 S.E.) (1 S.E.) (km2) elephants (1 S.E.) (1 S.E.) Dehradun 0.12 0.09 0.15 177.6 21 15 26 Haridwar 0.15 0.09 0.22 277.2 42 24 59 Rajaji 0.30 0.26 0.34 815.0 244 209 280 Lansdowne 0.49* 0.41 0.57 310.2 151 126 175 Kalagarh 0.49* 0.41 0.57 522.1 255 214 296 Corbett 0.68 0.56 0.79 515.8 349 290 408 Ramnagar 0.20 0.15 0.25 472.5 93 70 116 Terai west 0.10 0.07 0.14 243.8 25 16 34 Terai central 0.11# 0.06 0.15 147.1 24 14 34 Terai east 0.06 0.05 0.08 228.6 9 6 11 Haldwani 0.07 0.06 0.09 465.8 34 27 42 Champawat 0.19 0.08 0.29 111.6 20 9 31 * Mean of density estimates of Rajaji and Corbett National Parks #Mean of density estimates of Terai West, Terai East and Haldwani 7

B: Estimate based on pooled transect data for entire state Elephant Elephant Lower Upper distribution Mean no. Lower Upper density limit limit area of limit limit (per km2) (1 S.E.) (1 S.E.) (km2) elephants (1 S.E.) (1 S.E.) Entire state (excluding Lansdowne and Terai Central) 0.31 0.28 0.35 3748.6 1240 1104 1377 Lansdowne 0.49* 0.41 0.57 310.8 151 126 175 Terai central 0.11# 0.06 0.15 228.6 24 14 34 Total 1415 1244 1586 * Mean of density estimates of Rajaji and Corbett National Parks #Mean of density estimates of Terai West, Terai East and Haldwani

Based on these figures, it is expected that the state has a mean population of 1415 elephants, with a range of 1244-1586 elephants (one Standard Error), using the measured dung rate of 0.004/day and pooling data from all transects for analysis. This is probably a conservative estimate of the elephant population of the state as the dung decay rate estimated in this study could have erred on the lower side due to the limited time period of monitoring marked dung piles. In Uttarakhand, 12 forest divisions have elephants. The total area of the „elephant divisions‟ is 13,180 km2 of which 4,287 km2 (33%) has been identified based on the interviews with forest staff as the area over which elephants are distributed.

The pattern of elephant distribution arrived at by information obtained from the knowledge of the field staff on the one hand, and by the Kernel Density Estimator on the other, was similar. The mean elephant distribution areas calculated by both these methods were not significantly different. The results of elephant distribution area matched the pattern of elephant densities. The area of elephant distribution is significantly correlated with elephant density.

Elevation of the forest divisions ranges from 80m to 2100m, and elephant distribution was reported from an altitude of 220m to 1450m. The presence of elephants for the altitudinal range from 200m to 400m was the highest (39%) followed by 400m to 600m (35%) and 600m to 800m (18%). Elephants are observed even above 1200m but have a low presence at this altitude (0.3%).

This exercise of estimation of elephant numbers and determination of elephant distribution area for the entire state of Uttarakhand is the first such exercise of its kind. The work carried out provides an opportunity for a critical review of methodologies for improving the elephant population estimates. We make the following suggestions for improving the methodology and scientific robustness of such exercises:

a) Carry out dung decay rate experiments at 3-4 forest divisions spread across the state over an extended time period of at least 4 to 6 months. Adequate number of dung samples has to be marked at regular intervals and monitored in order to maximize reliability of results. b) Given the very low dung decay rates during the dry season, formulate and execute a different method of elephant density estimation from two line transect surveys for dung density, one survey at the beginning of the dry season and the second survey about 3-4 months later with more precise estimate of dung decay rate in the intervening period. c) Ensure that all forest divisions with elephants follow similar field methods in line transect estimation of dung density.

1. Introduction & objectives

The estimation of population densities or numbers is important for framing suitable policy measures for the management and conservation of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). Estimates of Asian elephant population by statistically robust methods are available only for a few locations in the country (Karanth and Sunquist 1992, Varman and Sukumar 1995). Population estimation using rigorous scientific methods is time consuming, expensive, and needs special expertise; above all, the results obtained from a few studies are usually not validated through the application of multiple methods or through repeated sampling of the population.

Uttarakhand State falls under the North-West elephant distribution range in India (Johnsingh 1994). This elephant distribution is part of the Shivalik Elephant Range of Project Elephant (Bist 2002). A part of this landscape comes under the Protected Area network and has one of the least skewed male to female sex ratios among Asian elephant populations in the country (Williams 2007). However, the estimates of actual numbers of elephants found in the state have varied over time.

Singh (1995) reports estimates of 380, 507, 769, 1010 and 1069 elephants for the years 1967, 1976, 1986, 1991 and 1992, respectively, based on “total counts‟ of elephants in the erstwhile state of Uttar Pradesh (most of the elephant range of U.P. has since come under the newly- created state of Uttarakhand in 2000). Since then, higher numbers have been reported for this range implying at least some increase in elephant numbers. Johnsingh (1994) and Johnsingh and Joshua (1994) reported about 800-1000 elephants distributed in the mountainous tract between the Sarada River in the east and the Yamuna River in the west in six isolated populations. Among them, the elephant population located in the Rajaji-Corbett complex is reported to be 650 elephants (Singh 1995).

Elephant numbers in the state have been reported to have increased from 380 elephants in 1967 to about 1550 in 2003, while from 2003 to 2008 there is a decrease in the estimates (Singh 1995; Uttarakhand Forest Department 2008, unpublished results). However, from these reports, elephant density and extrapolation of the same to obtain actual elephant numbers cannot be derived because the effective area surveyed to obtain the numbers is not known. Given the distinct possibility of underestimates from “total counts” as well as the “guesstimates” in various reports, more scientifically acceptable or repeatable estimates are obviously needed for Uttarakhand.

Further, if the elephant numbers reported for Uttarakhand by direct methods during 2003- 2008 are critically reviewed for the various divisions in the state, those in high density regions such as Rajaji and Corbett National Parks show greater consistency than those in low elephant density regions. For example, in Haldwani Forest Division (a low density elephant region), 93 elephants were estimated in 2003, 29 in 2005 and only 5 elephants in 2008. When populations are directly “counted” within a short time period (say 3 days), the enumerators are able to locate a certain proportion of elephants in high density regions, but a similar effort in low density regions would result in much lower precision in counts. This may be due to elephants moving out of the division during the census days or the enumerators not being able to detect them.

In such situations, instead of looking for elephants directly, indirect evidence such as dung piles could be used to arrive at an average estimate for the division over a longer period of time. Barnes et al. (1997b) recommended dung counts as the most practical means of determining distribution of elephants and estimating their densities in dense forest where they are found at relatively low abundances. This approach has many advantages – elephants defecate frequently (on average 16-17 times per day) and the dung typically persists for a 10 long time (of the order of months); hence, the presence of elephants can be more easily made out in the forest by spotting their dung. In other words, you are far more likely to spot elephant dung than elephants themselves in forest habitat.

Density of elephant dung could be translated into elephant density if defecation rate and dung decay rate are known, while mapping elephant distribution area for a given region would yield an estimate of elephant number. However, the accuracy of elephant population estimates depends upon the accuracy of estimates of elephant defecation rate and dung decay rate (Barnes et al. 1997).

Dung density arrived at by line transect sampling (Barnes 1996, Barnes et al. 1997a, Varman et al. 1995) is usually precise as long as the sample of dung piles recorded is adequate (50 or more piles would be the minimum target, though in practice a dung survey yields several hundred piles in low to medium density areas, and several thousand piles in medium to high density areas). Studies show that there may not be much difference in defecation rates among elephants across different regions (studies in African and Asian elephants report between 14 and 20 defecations per 24 hours, with 16 to 18 being the most common estimates; For African elephants see Wing and Buss 1970, Merz 1986, Tchamba 1992 for Asian elephants see Watve 1992, Varma et al. 2008, H. Mangave, N. Baskaran and R. Sukumar 2004, unpublished data from Jaldapara, West Bengal).

However, the most challenging aspect in the indirect, dung count method is obtaining robust dung decay rate estimates for the period prior to the dung density survey (Barnes and Barnes 1992, Barnes et al. 1997b). Dung decay rate may vary widely across regions and seasons (Sukumar 1999) and therefore using results from other locations or even different seasons cannot be expected to give reliable estimates of elephant density or numbers.

Factors such as rainfall (Barnes et al. 1997; Nchanji and Plumptre 2001), obtaining enough fresh dung piles in a given region or season for monitoring decay rate especially in regions of low elephant density and motivating the observers to understand the concept behind setting up decay rate experiments are some factors that determine the success or otherwise in obtaining robust decay rates. The recent recommendation of using the retrospective method of estimating dung decay rate (see Hedges and Lawson 2006) is yet to be systematically used in the country in elephant population estimation exercises.

The second issue to be considered is that of actual elephant distribution in a region that is governed by several factors. The availability of food, water and shade that varies across seasons, determines the overall distribution of a species in a given landscape. For instance, during the dry season the effective area used by elephants may be reduced to a smaller proportion of the overall habitat used during the wet season, especially in highly seasonal regions as in the case of Uttarakhand. Forage resources for elephants in Uttarakhand appear to be patchily distributed within a narrow, linear belt across the state.

Elephant population estimations in the past have been made at two scales. For the erstwhile state of Uttar Pradesh (most of the elephant range now falling within Uttarakhand), Singh (1969, 1978, 1986 and 1995) carried out a number of censuses using the total count method. Site-specific estimates have also been made (Johnsingh 1994 and Williams 2007) for Rajaji National Park). No comprehensive landscape-level estimations of elephant density or its distribution for the state are available. The objective of the current investigation was therefore to map the elephant distribution area, estimate elephant density from the indirect, dung count method and, from these variables, provide a tentative estimate of elephant numbers in various forest divisions of Uttarakhand. 11

Uttarakhand Forest Department (UFD) has accumulated significant knowledge on the species and its habitat but their management interests have focused on relatively small locations or time periods. UFD thus has an important need for building its capacity in estimation of elephant numbers for the state on a regular basis. The 2012 exercise led by ANCF of surveying the elephant population of Uttarakhand using the indirect dung count method and providing training at all levels of UFD on the subject contributes to this broader goal of capacity building.

2. Study area

The landscape Physical features The landscape under study in the state of Uttarakhand lies between the Yamuna and Sarada rivers. This landscape can be classified into four distinct terrain types, namely, Shivalik hills, doon valley, bhabhar tract and terai belt (Atkinson 1882; Agni et al. 2000; Chaturveedi and Misra 1985). The Shivalik hills consist of a series of sharp ridges intercepting V-shaped valleys running for about 2400 km from the Indus and ends close to the Brahmaputra. They extend west from Arunachal Pradesh through Bhutan to Sikkim, and further westward through Nepal and Uttarakhand, continuing into Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. This uplifted ridge system formed from debris brought down from the main Himalayas run along the base of the great mountain chain. According to geologists, these deposits were subsequently thrown up by tectonic activity in the form of a hill range varying in elevation from 200 m at the terminal southern slopes to 1000 m at the peaks.

The alluvial nature of the soil makes the Shivaliks very productive, but the same factor makes them highly prone to soil erosion. During the monsoon, the raus or riverbeds become raging torrents, carrying boulders and uprooted vegetation in a fast muddy torrent. This special geological feature makes conservation of soil-moisture and water regimes obligatory. The Shivalik tract is over 10 million years old and is very rich in fossils. Coarse material brought down by the Himalayan rivers is deposited immediately along the foothills to form a pebbly, boulder layer referred to as bhabar, while the finer sediments of clay is carried further to form the terai. bhabar has a low water table due to its porous layers (See Figures 1a, b, c, & d for examples physical features & drainage systems).Thus, except for major rivers all other streams disappear into the ground, upwelling to the surface in the moist terai tract. The terai plains are marked by a high water table and abundant surface water in the form of streams and swamps. Much of the bhabhar plains and almost all of the terai plains are under agriculture, and a significant proportion of the terai-bhabhar tract at the fringes of the Shivaliks has come under the plough in the past five decades. The doon valley at the foothills of the Himalayas is bounded by lesser Himalayan rocks in the north and Shivaliks in the south, and transversally bordered by River Ganges in the south-east and River Yamuna in the north-west.

Elevation, major river system and seasons The altitude of the Shivaliks ranges from 400m to 1400m, the porous bhabhar between 300 and 400m, and the moist terai below 300m is relatively flat. The Yamuna, Ganges, Ramganga, Koshi, Gola and Sarada are the main rivers in this landscape. The terrain has a number of raus or streams that originate from the sub-mountain terrain and are dry during most of the months except during the monsoon. The temperature in the terai and bhabhar belts is subtropical in nature whereas the doon valley is temperate and humid. Three seasons can be identified - winter (November to March), summer (March to July) and the monsoon (July to November). The rainfall data, however, indicate that October and November are low rainfall months. Average annual rainfall ranges from 1300-1900mm and most of the rainfall occurs in the months of July to September. „Western disturbances‟ also bring frequent showers in the dry season. Again, because of the alluvial nature of the soils, the percolation is high and, hence, the surface expression of water during the dry season is very poor.

Forest types and faunal diversity Overall, the forest type found in this landscape is dry and mixed deciduous, scrub and savannah and grasslands (Figures 1e, f, g, & h), however, Johnsingh et al 2004, reports the following forest types 1) Sal forest, 2) Sal mixed forest, 3) Riverine forest or miscellaneous forest and 4) Forest plantations. Tropical dry deciduous forest dominated by Shorea robusta, tropical mixed forest containing Shorea robusta, tropical mixed forest containing Shorea 14 robusta, Mallotus philippinensis and Ehretia laevi, miscellaneous forest with Ziziphus spp., and Helicteres isora.

a b

c d

e f

g h

Figures 1a, b, c, d, e, f, g & h: Landscape features , forest types & status in elephants habitats of Uttarakhand

Forest in the bhabhar tract is dry deciduous woodland dominated by Sal Shorea robusta, Anogeissus latifolia, Mallotus philippinensis, plantations with Dalbergia sisoo, Acacia catechu and Garuga pinnatta and bamboo (Dendrocalamus strictus) which once was common throughout the tract.

The understory in many places is dominated by Lantana camara and Adhatoda vasica weeds. Grasslands are restricted to riverine regions and hill slopes. The terai, with its fine alluvium and clay rich swamps, is dominated by a mosaic of tall grass and Sal forest. The forests found in the bhabhar are more open and harbor a diversity of plant species due to its undulating topography.

The regions within this landscape are a storehouse of biodiversity. For example, a single protected area (Rajaji National Park) with an area of about 1000 km2 is home to 51 species of mammals (Figure 2a, b, c, d, e, f, g & h), more than 313 species of birds, 12 species of amphibians, more than 20 species of reptiles, and 49 species of freshwater fishes.

a b

c d

e f

g h

Figures 2a, b, c, d, e, f , g & h: Examples of different species of mammals found in elephant habitats in Uttarakhand; sambar deer (a), goral (b), barking deer & rhesus macaque (c), a herd of nilgai (d), swamp deer (e), spotted deer along with an elephant herd (f), jackal (g), tiger pug mark (h)

The administrative boundaries of protected areas and territorial forest divisions of Uttarakhand do not necessarily match with the ecological boundaries of the distribution of elephants and other large mammals. The occurrence and distribution of elephants in this landscape (Figures 3a & b) seems to be shaped by the four geographical features (Shivaliks, bhabhar, terai and doon) discussed above. The use of each of these regions would depend mostly on accessibility and resource availability. Hence, it is important to understand the role that each of these features play in determining elephant distribution and number. The terai belt, which was once characterized by vast expanses of grasslands and was prime habitat for elephants of this landscape, is now largely converted into a cultivated tract with a high human population density.

a b

Figures 3a & b: Presence of elephants in varied landscape features, forest (a) and grassland (b) as examples

As a result most of this area is not available for elephants any more. Remnants of such areas, however, can still be seen in protected areas such as Corbett National Park and these areas within the Parks are extensively used by elephants and act as feeding grounds during the dry season. The same is the state of doon valley that could have acted as another ideal habitat for the elephants and a permanent source of resource. This valley now harbours a high human population and is the site of Dehradun, the capital city of the state of Uttarakhand. Within the protected area network, several small valleys or „sots‟ are seen along the rivers and streams.

Elephants are known to use these areas extensively, mostly during summer to move from one foraging site to another. In addition, on either side of these river beds a rich variety of palatable plant species such as grasses and Mallotus philippinensis grow extensively and is a rich source of fodder for the elephants. The low lying hills are characterized by Sal and Mallotus philippinensis trees that are utilized by elephants. The higher reaches of the hills are mostly inaccessible to elephants due to the steep slope and loose soil. However, elephants are known to move up to the top of the hills along the natural contours in search of bamboo, a preferred food species.

3. Methods 19

Background Estimation of elephant density using indirect (dung) count involves in collecting information on elephant dung decay rate, defecation rate and dung density. The estimated elephant density is extrapolated to the elephant distribution area for each forest division to arrive at number of elephants for each forest division.

Dung decay rate experiment Initially, four locations (Rajaji, Lansdowne, Corbett and Haldwani Divisions) were selected for monitoring the decay rate of fresh dung piles of elephants. As the estimation of elephant numbers through the dung count method was proposed only between River Yamuna (Dehra Dun Forest Division) in the west to River Kosi (Ramnagar FD) in the west, Haldwani was excluded as a location for the decay rate experiment. The retrospective method of estimating dung decay rate, recommended by the CITES/MIKE programme (Hedges and Lawson 2006) was used for this exercise. The experiments were designed to begin about 3-4 months prior to the dung survey using transects; this was based on the expectation that a large proportion of the initially marked dung piles would decay by the time of the dung survey. In each selected division, beginning October 20, 2011, the plan was to mark 15 fresh dung piles at an interval of about 20 days each. This exercise was continued up to February 20, 2012. The dung decay rate experiment in each Forest Division or region was further divided into three sub-divisions or sections. In each sub-section, five fresh dung piles were marked at 20 day intervals. This was carried out under the supervision of Range Forest Officers. On marking of fresh dung piles, photographs were taken and GPS locations recorded.

The locations were marked with 3-letter codes, with each letter representing division, range and beat. For example, LKL was assigned for Lansdowne Division, Kotdwar Range and Lalpani Beat. The nearest tree or a prominent object (a large stone, for example) was used to mark the locations. The observer maintained field notes for identification of the marker location, including its name, the presence of water holes or other landscape features. From February 28, 2012, all the marked locations were visited to know their status on the day of visiting the dung pile. The dung piles were visited by a team consisting of ANCF senior scientist, Uttarakhand Forest Department (UFD) range officers, deputy foresters, and beat watchers. Dung piles were located by using the recorded landmarks and local knowledge of field staff guiding the team. On visiting a site, details such as serial number, code, location names, date of marking, date of visit, GPS location, and the status (present or absent) along with photograph of each dung pile were collected. The ANCF senior scientist along with forest staff visited a total of 281 dung piles between February 28 and March 7, 2012 as it was not possible to visit all the dung piles in a single day. A total of 281 dung piles originating from six Forest Ranges of Kalagarh Sub-division and Corbett National Park (Kalagarh, Jhirna, Dhela, Bijrani, Sarpduli and Dhikala), two ranges in Lansdowne (Kotdwar and Kotdi), and three Ranges in Rajaji National Parks (Haridwar, Chilla, and Gohri) were visited (see Figures 1a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h & i for training programme contacted for dung decay rate experiment, marking of dung piles and revisiting them).

Dung density estimation Estimation of elephant numbers for Uttarakhand was initially planned only up to Ramnagar Forest Division covering the divisions of Dehradun, Haridwar, Rajaji NP, Lansdowne, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve, Sonanadi WLS, Corbett NP and Ramnagar under three zones along a west-east axis. Zone I comprised Dehradun, Haridwar and West of Rajaji; Zone II comprised East Rajaji and Lansdowne; Zone III comprised Corbett TR (Kalagarh Tiger Reserve, Sonanadi WLS, Corbett NP) and Ramnagar Divisions.

a b

c d

e f

g h

Figures 1a, b, c, d, e, f ,g & h: Training programme contacted for dung decay rate experiment (a & b), marking of dung piles for decay rate experiment (c & d) revisiting them & recording the status of the same (e, f, g & h)

While conducting a training programme on estimation of elephant numbers in Ramnagar, interest in estimating elephant numbers east of Ramnagar (region covering Haldwani, Terai West, Terai Central and Terai East and Champawat) was shown by Chief Conservator of 21

Forests (Kumaon), Conservator of Forests (Western Circle), Divisional Forest Officers of Haldwani and Terai West, and a team of researchers from WWF-India; this led the ANCF team to carry out an exclusive planning and training programme for the above mentioned additional regions and these were brought under Zone IV. Using a Geographical Information System (GIS), each forest division was divided into grid sizes of 20km2 (Figure 2a & b). Depending on the area of specific forest beats, about 3-4 beats fell within a single 20 km2 gird. One km line transects were planned for each grid; thus, West and East Rajaji NP with a combined area of 820 km2 area were to have 44 transects (Table 1). Training in laying of transects was done through zone-wise field programmes conducted by ANCF. Training for Corbett TR was conducted at Ramnagar, for Lansdowne and part of Kalagarh Division at Saneh (Lansdowne), and for Rajaji, Haridwar and Dehradun at Chilla. The actual planning during the training programme was done using division maps with 20 km2 grids as well as forest beats overlaid on them. Forest official for a given region were interviewed and, initially, beats with no elephants were identified for each division. Beats with varying presence of elephants were further defined as low, medium and high elephant distribution areas. Beats designated as “no elephant” distribution areas were excluded from the transect exercise (Figures 3a, b, c & d). The team for each transect consisted of four people; a researcher and three forest personnel who were in charge of a given beat. While the researcher fixed the compass bearing for establishing the transect, the forest staff created a path with minimum disturbance to vegetation. At the beginning of the transect the GPS reading was taken and a 50-meter rope was successively used to mark out the transect. Walking along the transect line at a constant pace, only the researcher looked for dung piles; forest staff assisting the researchers were requested not to look for dung piles.

On sighting a dung pile, the perpendicular distance from the line to the centre of the pile was measured to the nearest 0.1m using a measuring tape, and a GPS reading of this location was taken. After obtaining the GPS reading, the researcher walked back to the line to proceed further. The plan was to cover 300 transects across Uttarakhand, with a minimum of 30 transects for each division. These transects were expected to be walked within 10 days, with visits to the marked dung piles for estimating decay rates planned for the mid-point of this interval. However, factors such as the ruggedness, remoteness and inaccessibility of the terrain made infeasible the use of 1km transects. In such situations two 500m or two 300m and one 400m transects were planned. Efforts were made to lay transects which were not less than 250m in length (Figure 4a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, j, k & l).

Table 1: Number of transects and number of grids planned for each Forest Division

Sl. Division name Number of No. of transects No. of transects no grids planned walked 1 Dehradun 15 15 14 2 Haridwar 26 26 23 3 Rajaji 44 44 36 4 Lansdowne 16 16 14 5 Kalagarh 26 26 18 6 Corbett 30 30 30 7 Ramnagar 18 18 18 8 Terai west 19 19 20 9 Terai central 17 17 0 10 Terai east 10 10 20 11 Haldwani 30 30 23 12 Champawat 9 9 12 260 260 227 22

Figure 2a: Map showing 20km2 grids and forest beats for forest divisions in Uttarakhand

Figure 2b: Map showing locations of transect in each grid for different forest divisions in Uttarakhand

24 Figures 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d provide scope for comparison of planning and execution of transect lines as examples for two forest divisions

Figure 3a: Locations and number of transects that were to be selected and walked in Rajaji National Park (Black boxes indicate proposed transects)

Figure 3b: Location and number of actual transects walked in Rajaji National Park (black dots indicate the transects walked)

Figure 3c: Locations and number of transects that were to selected and walked in Haldwani Forest Division (Black boxes indicate proposed transects)

Figure 3d: Location and number of actual transect walked in Haldwani Forest Division (black dots indicate the transects walked)

a b

c d

e f

g h

i j

k l

Figures 4a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k & l: Training programme for UFD staff & field researchers on estimating elephant numbers using line transect indirect count (a, b, c, d, e, f, g & h) walking transects in different forest regions (i, j, k & l).

Determination of elephant distribution area The area actually used by elephants for translating elephant density into elephant numbers for each division or zone (and eventually for the entire state) was determined through two distinct approaches, one based on interview and interaction with field staff (Figures 5a, b, c & d) and the other based on Kernel Density Estimator using encounter rates of 412 transect lines (segments) established to estimate elephant dung density. The opportunity for

28 conducting training programmes on estimating elephant numbers for Uttarakhand was utilized to create an elephant distribution map. For this purpose field staff were interviewed division-wise; the list of beats which was already generated was used. For this exercise a total of 240 field staff and others with knowledge on elephant presence were associated with the study.

A given beat was categorized as falling under high, medium and low elephant use based on the number of days a staff sighted elephants during 10 days of field visits. In high density elephant divisions, high elephant use beats were identified as those in which a beat staff sighted elephants in practically all ten days, medium elephant use beats as those in which elephants were sighted in approximately 4-6 days, and low elephant use beat when elephants were sighted only once or twice during this period. For low elephant density region or division, high elephant use beats were identified as those in which a beat staff sighted elephants at least 6 days in 10 days of his/her visit, medium elephant beats as those in which elephants were sighted at least 3 days in 10 days of visits and low elephant distribution beat when elephants are sighted 1-2 days during 10 days of field staff visit to the forest. With this procedure for each beat, the status of elephant distribution across divisions was assigned and this has helped in determining the elephant distribution for the entire Uttarakhand. This information on high, medium and low elephant distribution can be also used for planning transects; for example to increase the sampling efforts relatively more transects could be placed in high elephant distribution areas.

a b

c d

Figures 5a, b, c & d: Assessing elephant distribution area for Uttarakhand based on interviews & interactions with field staff from different forest divisions; introduction of the concept to the field staff (a), interviews with field staff based on the lists of beat names available for each forest division (b, c & d).

Elephant distribution area can be also arrived at using results of dung pile encounters along line transects laid in the beats of a given division. This approach not only indicates the presence or absence of elephants at a given location, but also provides a more objective basis for determining the extent of distribution and relative abundance of elephants. The results of encounter of dung piles along 412 transects line (segments) were used in the computer programme Kernel Density Estimator to determine elephant distribution in Uttarakhand.

However, with the terrain in question and the logistical support available, it is difficult to cover the entire region and obtain reasonable or acceptable results. The benefit of obtaining information from the field staff is that their knowledge is based on accumulated experience covering different seasons, years and habitats of the division. Once the transects are walked, the results of encounter rate could be used to arrive at the kernel density estimator for determining elephant distribution area more objectively. Results of both field staff ground knowledge and transects could then be compared.

4. Data processing

The procedures followed for analyzing data are presented below in two parts. Elephant densities are estimated using the parameters elephant dung density, dung daily decay rate and daily defecation rate. In addition to this, the percentage area used by elephants (elephant distribution) for each forest division was also determined. Part 1 presents the approaches followed to estimate dung decay rate, dung density and elephant distribution area. In estimating the density of objects using probability detection functions the cut-off width, the effective strip width, the number of distance class intervals (bins) of dung piles and model selection play an important role in determining the precision of an estimate. The methods adopted for selection of appropriate cut-off width, bins and models are given in Part 11.

Part 1: Decay rate, defecation rate, dung density and elephant distribution area decay and defecation rates Mean time to decay is derived starting with equation 3 in Laing et al (2003):

E (Yi| xi) = Pr (Yi= 1 | xi) = p (xi)

Where p (xi) is the probability that sign i survives until the revisit, assumed to depend on xi alone, therefore,

Where β0 and β1 are coefficients to be estimated

As per equation 15 in Laing et al (2003) the mean time to decay was estimated as

Daily defecation rate was based on Watve (1992) who estimated a mean rate of 16.33 (SE = 0.8) dung piles/day.

Elephant dung density Elephant dung density was estimated using the computer programme Distance Version 6.0 (Thomas et al. 2010). The following equation is used to obtain elephant density

D= n.f(0)/2L

Where D is dung density, n is the number of dung piles, and L is the total length of the transects walked for recording dung piles (see details in the protocols followed to estimate elephant dung density for Rajaji National Park as a model for data processing which is presented below).

Elephant density The following function was used to compute elephant density (Barnes and Jensen 1987)

E= (Y x R)/ D

32 where, E = Elephant density Y = Density of dung R = Daily rate of decay D = Number of times an individual elephant defecates per day.

The mean dung density, mean daily dung decay rate, mean daily defecation rate and their standard errors (SE) were converted into elephant density through Monte Carlo simulations using the programme GAJAHA Ver. 2.0 (Santosh and Sukumar 1995; Prasad and Sukumar 2006).

Elephant distribution based on information from field staff Based on the knowledge of the field staff regarding the presence or absence of elephants, an elephant distribution map for each forest beat of each forest division was generated. As mentioned elsewhere, inputs from field staff for identifying elephant distribution (presence of elephants) were categorised into three types, i.e., high, moderate and low use areas. Areas falling under these classes were regrouped to create elephant distribution area within each division.

Elephant distribution based on Kernel Density Estimator The software Kernel Density Estimator was also used to map elephant distribution based on dung data from 412 segments of 227 transects conducted in the study area. Encounter rate (number of dung piles per unit distance walked) was used as weightage factor while generating density distribution. The Kernel Density estimator provides a “density surface” that shows where encounter (of dung piles) is concentrated (see Hooge et al. 1999; Hooge and Eichenlaub 2000 for more details).

Elephant distribution in relation to elevational range Elevation data were extracted from eight scenes of ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model (G-DEM). The resolution of data is 1arc sec (http://www.gdem.aster.ersdac.or.jp). Slope and elevation of area with elephant distribution and without distribution was compared, to see the relationship of elephant preference to specific slope and elevation.

Part II: Dung density estimates: Selection of cut-off width, perpendicular distance class intervals (bin) and model selection using data from Rajaji National Park as an example Cut-off width Theoretically, and as one would expect in a probability density function, the frequency of detection of dung piles reduces with increasing distance from the transect line. There are, however, instances where dung piles are detected at distances far from the transect line (for e.g. in a grassland or open areas). These observations are usually rare and occur at negligible frequency. If one uses the entire data set for model fitting and analysis, these “outliers” may introduce „noise‟ and influence model robustness and precision of the estimate. For this reason it is a well-established procedure that a part of the data is truncated in order to reduce the error in estimation.

The truncation distance can be determined in more ways than one. Firstly, 5% to 10% of the data points or measures of perpendicular distance of dung to transect line falling towards the higher end can be discarded from the analysis as suggested by Buckland et al. (1993). Secondly, box plots can be generated from which the cut-off width can be calculated as 1.5 times the inter-quartile range (difference between 3rd quartile and 1st quartile) added to the 3rd quartile. This distance measure can then be used as a truncation distance or cut-off distance. 33

Here, the case of Rajaji National Park illustrates the use of the box plot approach to determining cut-off width. Raw data collected from the field showed a range of perpendicular distance from 0 m to 52.5 m. Table 1 provides the distances of dung piles from the transect line for each quartile of the box plot along with the minimum and maximum values for Rajaji National Park.

Table 1: Summary of the perpendicular distances (m) of dung piles from transect lines for Rajaji National Park

1 Minimum 0 2 1st Quartile 1.5 3 Median 4.0 4 Mean 5.58 5 3rd Quartile 7.8 6 Maximum 52.5

This indicates that 25% of the observations fall between 0 meters to 1.5m distance (1st quartile) and 50% of the observations fall between 0 meters to 4m (median), and 75% of the observations range between 0 and 7.8m. However, the last 25% of the observation range from 7.8m (3rd quartile) to 52.5m which is wide compared to the other quartiles. Clearly this is due to the few extreme values resulting in the distribution being skewed (Figure 1).

As seen in Figure 2, the cut-off width for the data points from transects walked in Rajaji National Park is arrived at by using the formula given below and is based on the inter-quartile range excluding the outliers (which are points plotted beyond the 3rd quartile). Cut-off suggested for Rajaji National Park using the box plot method is calculated as follows: 3rd quartile + 1.5*(3rd quartile-1st quartile)

=7.8+1.5*(7.8-1.5) = 17.25 ≈18

Cut-off derived for Rajaji National Park using the first method mentioned above (i.e. by discarding 5% of the data) is 16m. In the analysis used in this document the second method (i.e. box plot method) was adopted and a distance of 18m taken as the cut-off.

Class intervals (bin) Once the cut-off width is decided, the next step is to “bin the data” or group them into distance classes of equal (or unequal) intervals. In the case of Rajaji National Park, the data points (ranging from 0m to 18m) were grouped into different numbers of bins with a maximum of 30 bins (as allowed in the analytical tool: Distance 6.0). The data were grouped into bins numbering 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 and 3. The data were analyzed for these different class intervals using the detection functions Half Normal, Uniform, Hazard Rate and Negative Exponential.

Too few bins will result in over-smoothing of data with loss of detail of the underlying distribution. Too many bins induce unnecessary spikes that may result in failure to recognize trends. Results of fitted models for Rajaji National Park are given in Appendix 1. It was found that as the number of bins decreases, the AIC value decreases. Here, the models for which the chi-square goodness of fit test was not possible to compute or the p- value given by the chi-square goodness of fit test is less than 0.05 are ignored.

Figure 1: Distribution of dung piles detected from different distance intervals

Figure 2: Box plot of perpendicular distance of dung for transects in Rajaji National Park

Model selection While selecting the best performing model, performance of each model in terms of their coefficient of variation (CV) as well as the width of the confidence interval (CI) were considered (Figure 3) apart from AIC. A model with the least CV and CI should ideally be chosen. There could, however, be a tradeoff between these two parameters which can be visualized by plotting CI width vs CV for different models.

Figure 3: Relationship between coefficient of variation and confidence intervals estimated for different models

From Figure 3, one can see that Hazard Rate models consistently show higher CV and broader CI. Hence, it is clear that these models are not performing well. Although Negative Exponential models have consistently low CV, they have narrow CI. A few Half Normal models and Uniform models are very close to one another in terms of CV and narrow CI. However, three Half Normal models show very low CV and CI values. Although models with the least CV and CI should be selected, precaution should be taken while selecting the models since there is a chance that the product value of these parameters could get lowered due to the small magnitude of only one parameter. Keeping this in mind models that are robust are given in the Table 2:

Table 2: Robust population estimation models selected for Rajaji National Park

S. Name D D CI No of the ESW/ LC UC GOF CI width model AIC EDR D L L D CV Chi-p width *DCV 1 A 1911.7 6.85 1219 930 1599 0.14 0.15 669 90.36 2 B 1517.4 6.81 1227 935 1610 0.14 0.13 675 91.37 3 C 1276.9 6.82 1226 934 1610 0.14 0.87 677 91.99 A: Half normal (bins 7), B: Half normal (bins 5), C: Half normal (bins 4); AIC: Akaike Information Criterion value; ESW: Effective Strip Width; EDR: Effective Detection Radius, D: Mean dung density estimates/km2; LCL: Lower Confidence (95%) Limit; UCL: Upper Confidence (95%) limit; D CV: Coefficient of variation of average dung density estimates/km2; GOF Chi-p: P value of Chi Square Goodness of Fit test; CI width: Width of the 95% confidence interval 36

Among these, though AIC decreases with number of bins, 5 or less than 5 bins could potentially face over-smoothing problem as mentioned earlier. Thus, model Half Normal with 7 bins (Cosine adjustments of order 2) was considered to be the optimal model. The histogram of this optimal fitted model using cut-off arrived using box plot is given in Figure 4 and it is clear that it is a good fit to the data.

Figures 4: Detection probability arrived at using box plot cut off and Half Normal model for Rajaji National Park

On similar lines, the following model was chosen as optimal model using 5% cut off and the results are given in Table 3 and Figure 5.

Table 3: Optimal model using 5% data cut-off for Rajaji National Park

CI D D D GOF CI width Name AIC ESW/EDR D LCL UCL CV Chi-p width DCV

A* 1785.9 6.64 1242 947 1628 0.135 0.011 680.96 92.07 A*: Half normal (bins 6); AIC: Akaike Information Criterion value; ESW: Effective Strip Width; EDR: Effective Detection Radius, D: Mean dung density estimates/km2; LCL: Lower Confidence (95%) Limit; UCL: Upper Confidence (95%) limit; D CV: Coefficient of variation of average dung density estimates/km2; GOF Chi-p: P value of Chi Square Goodness of Fit test; CI width: Width of the 95% confidence interval

It is clear that the optimal model or the best fitting model chosen using cut-off given by box plot performs better (Figure 5) than the optimal model chosen using 5% cutoff method, i.e. CV as well as width of the CI are both low for model chosen using box plot method. 37

Figure 5: Detection probability arrived at using 5% cut off and half normal model for Rajaji National Park

These results strongly support the choice of cut-off for the data using box plot for robust results.

5. Results & discussion

5a. Elephant dung decay rate for Uttarakhand 40

Marking dung piles A total of 281 fresh dung piles were marked for the dung decay rate experiment. Dung piles were marked over a period of 115 days, from 20th of October to 11th of February 2012. Depending on the presence of wild elephants which could be located for marking fresh dung piles (less than about 24 hrs), an attempt was made (by staff of Uttarakhand Forest Department) to mark about 20 dung piles each at 10-day intervals; in practice a mean of 23 (range 2-39) fresh dung piles was marked about every ten days (Table 1).

Table 1: Details of date and number of dung piles marked for decay rate observations . Number of dung piles marked S. Date of No marking Daily Monthly 10-day 1 20-10-2011 34 2 21-10-2011 1 3 22-10-2011 1 4 23-10-2011 3 39 5 30-10-2011 1 6 31-10-2011 1 41 2 7 10/11/2011 34 34 8 20-11-2011 26 26 9 30-11-2011 29 89 10 1/12/2011 1 30 11 10/12/2011 28 28 12 20-12-2011 21 21 13 30-12-2011 19 14 31-12-2011 16 85 35 15 10/1/2012 21 21 16 20-01-2012 15 15 17 30-01-2012 7 18 31-01-2012 5 48 12 19 10/2/2012 17 20 11/2/2012 1 18 18 Total 281 281 281 Mean 14.1 56.2 23.4 SE 2.8 15.3 3.2

Assessing the status of dung piles marked Dung piles that were marked were revisited from 28th February to 11th March 2012 to assess their status as Present–P or Absent–A. Visits were made to dung piles marked 145 days (first marking) to 24 days (last marking) earlier. Only 20% of the dung piles that were marked between 145 and 125 days earlier to the visit disappeared; similarly 6.1% of dung piles that were marked 105 to 85 days and 6.7% of dung piles that were marked 45-25 days before the visit disappeared (Figure 1).

100 90 Number of dung marked % Disappeared 80 70 60 56 54 49 45

Percentage Percentage 50 40 40 36 30 20.0 20 6.1 10 6.7 3.6 0.0 3.7 0 25-45 45-65 65-85 85-105 105-125 125-145 Days

Figure 1: Details of dung piles marked at different days prior to visit for determining decay status, and their status of decay for all sites pooled for Uttarakhand

Dung decay rate When all 281 dung piles marked for knowing the relationship between time (day) and status (presence or absence of dung piles-see figures 2a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n & o for different states of dung decay), using equation 3 in Laing et al. (2003), the results of the logistic regression are as follows,

Coefficients Estimate SE Z value Pr (>|Z|) Intercept 4.18 0.85 4.92 0.001 Time -0.02 0.01 -1.98 0.048

Figure 2 shows the realtionship between time (days) elapsed and status of dung pile (presence and absence); as time increases the probability of dung pile being present decreases.

Figure 2: Relationship between time and the status of dung pile surviving 42

a b

c D

e f

g h

i j

k l

m n

o p

Figures 2a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i, j,k,l,m,n o & p: Different stages of dung decay reported for Uttarakhand

Mean time to decay calculated using the estimated regression coefficent as per equation 15 in Laing et at. (2003) is 267 days (standard error = 5.26; N=281) or a decay rate of 0.0038 (rounded off to 0.004) dung piles/day. The decay rate appeared to be very low during the winter and dry season be due to the low rainfall (Figures 3a and 3b) and lower relative temperatures.

700 613 558 600 500 400 258

300 213 Mean Mean rainfall 200 100 42 54 53 54 38 27 8 21 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec.

600

500

400

300

200

100 Mean rainfall Mean rainfall ( to2000 2006) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Months

b Figures 3a, and b: Patterns of rainfall observed across study area; mean rainfall reported for 44 years for Rajaji NP (a) and mean rainfall reported for Nanital District from 2006 to 2010 (b)

Barnes et al. (1997) also found that greater the rainfall in the month of deposition the more rapid the decay and they also report that the rate of disappearance is slow at first and then accelerates. Low rainfall, increased sunshine and lower temperature, slow down the decay rate process (as observed by Breuer and Hockemba 2007). The combined effect of all these parameters is that dung piles become „fossilized‟ and persist for a long time. It is also assumed that low rainfall and high temperature may indirectly influence the prime decomposers - dung beetles, termites and fungi and their activities are less common in low rainfall seasons (Doube 1991; Masunga et al. 2006; White 1995; Horgan 2005; Vernes et al. 2005) thereby increasing the survival of dung piles.

Along with factors discussed above, the sampling bias in the current decay rate experiment also appeared to have influenced the results. The suggested number of dung piles to be marked for each location, or each time interval of marking, was not followed. This we assume further influenced the estimation of actual dung decay rate. For example, the number 45 of dung piles marked for initial and last marking days were low but 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th marking were very high (195 dung files contributing to 69% of dung piles marked) and they were monitored only from 45 to 125 days.

Dung piles of 3rd, 4th and 5th marking days contributed 50% of total dung piles marked which were monitored only for 45 to 85 days. A large percentage of dung piles were not monitored till they disappeared. But another interesting problem is that these cannot be continued to be monitored as these dung piles would move into high rainfall season, and within a short period all would disappear giving another set of biased results. MIKE (2003) suggests that the estimation of dung densities should approximately match up to a period taken for 90% of marked dung piles to decay; in Uttarakhand only 20% dung piles that were marked initially disappeared and estimated dung decay rate (mean time of 267 days) for Uttarakhand should thus be treated with caution.

5b. Elephant densities and numbers for Uttarakhand

Transect and microhabitats covered Profiles of transects A total of 227 transects with 412 segments covering 224.4 km were walked. The original plan was to walk 227 transects of 1 km each, but only 152 transects (36.9%) were 1 km long, while the remaining 75 transects were sub-divided into 260 segments by the field staff and researchers due to constraints imposed by the terrain; these segments could also be taken as individual transects. In practice the individual transect segment lengths ranged from 30m to 1100m with a mean length 552.9m (SE=19.2). Frequency distribution of transect lengths is given in Figure 1. Deviation from the standard 1km transect length was most pronounced for Lansdowne FD where it was only 120m; on the other hand, Terai West, Terai East and Ramnagar achieved the 1000m standard almost perfectly. The size of transect (or segment) covered may be related to habitat features. The short transects at Lansdowne could be attributed to the topography being elevated and sharply undulating. 50 40 36.9 30 20 15.8 11.2 Percentage 7.5 10 3.6 3.2 6.1 2.7 1.2 2.4 1.2 0.7 2.4 0.7 1.5 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0

Distance (m)

Figure 1: Distribution of transect lengths walked for dung counts

Microhabitats sampled The transects were laid across 8 broad habitat types (Figure 2) among which mixed deciduous forest dominated (61%) followed by Sal-dominated mixed deciduous forest (25%) and others (5% which primarily included riverine forest with Syzygium cumini, Trewia nudiflora and Acacia catechu). Grassland contributed 3% and plantations such as teak and eucalyptus constituted 2% of the habitat.

Teak plantation 2.4 Sal mixed forest 12.9 Sal forest 11.9 Others 4.9 Mixed forest & Grassland 1.2 Mixed Forest 61.1 Grassland+Scrub 0.2 Grassland 3.4 Eucalyptus & Mixed forest 1.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 2: Percentage of microhabitats encountered in different transects walked

A total of 4371 observations were made in all these transect and 4241 dung piles encountered were used for data processing after truncation (Table 1). The dung encounter rate was 18.9 piles/km (range from 3 to 51 piles/km across divisions). 48

Table 1: Details of dung count transects for various forest divisions in Uttarakhand

No. of Distance Number Number Minimum Mean observations Encounter Forest covered of of length Maximum Length No. of used in rate Divisions (km) transects segments (m) length (m) (m) SE observations model fit (piles/km)

Dehradun 14.2 14 21 200 1100 676.0 63 144 144 10

Haridwar 22.5 23 42 150 1000 534.5 36 322 309 14

Rajaji 35.0 36 49 150 1000 786.7 42 593 585 17

Lansdowne 13.7 14 121 30 1000 119.9 13 752 694 51

Kalagarh 18.0 18 27 150 1000 1000.0 0 667 665 37

Corbett 29.1 30 37 150 1000 785.1 60 1259 1201 41

Ramnagar 18.0 18 18 1000 1000 1000.0 0 198 198 11

Terai West 20.0 20 20 1000 1000 1000.0 0 143 138 7

Terai East 20.0 20 20 250 1000 1000.0 0 82 82 4

Haldwani 23.0 23 30 250 1000 766.6 51 87 80 3

Champawat 11.0 11 27 250 1000 407.4 41 137 132 12

Total 224.4 227 412 4371 4241 18.9

49 Estimated elephant population for different divisions Encounter rate of dung piles for each division In addition to dung encounter rate (dung piles/km), details related to distance covered, number of transects walked, cut-off distance used and number of observations for each division are given in Table 2. Encounter rate was maximum for Corbett National Park and the least for Haldwani FD. The reported encounter rate for Lansdowne and Kalagarh FD appeared to be very high, in the former case higher than Corbett NP and in the latter almost equal. Such high dung encounter rates in these two divisions seem to be the outcome of biased sampling of short transects within high elephant density areas; these encounter rates may considerably skew the calculation for density and number not only for the two divisions but for the entire state if used uncritically.

Table 2: Encounter rates (dung piles/km) and related parameters for forest divisions in Uttarakhand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total distance covered (km) 14.2 22.5 35 13.7 18 29.1 18 20 20 23 11 No. of transects 14 23 36 14 18 30 18 20 20 23 11 Cut-off (by box plot method - in m) 24 24 18 14 11 19 10 20 11 11 16 No. of observations 144 322 585 694 665 1201 198 138 82 80 132 Encounter rate (dung piles/km) 10 14 17 51 37 41 11 7 4 3 12 1: Dehradun FD, 2: Haridwar NP, 3: Rajaji NP 4: Lansdowne FD, 5: Kalagarh FD, 6: Corbett NP, 7: Ramnagar FD, 8: Terai West FD, 9: Terai East FD, 10: Haldwani FD, 11: Champawat FD

Truncation distance used and model selected Truncation distances varied from 10m and 11m for Ramnagar FD and Haldwani FD, respectively, to 24m for Dehradun FD and Haridwar FD (Table 3). Detection functions with different combinations of series expansions appear to be the best fit for various sites (see figures 3a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j and k). Maximum numbers of bins used are for Corbett NP i.e. 20; however, for Lansdowne FD and Terai West FD, only 5 bins are used. The optimal model parameters, dung density estimates and other parameters for each division are given in the Table 4. For Champawat FD the estimated coefficient of variation in dung density is very high (53.5%) followed by Haridwar FD (41.5%) and for Kalagarh FD it is the least (11.59%).

Table 3: Truncation distance, number of bins, and detection function for different forest divisions in Uttarakhand Truncation distance (m) by box No. Forest plot of Detection Divisions method bins function Series expansion 1 Dehradun 24 8 Uniform cosine adjustments of orders 1,2 2 Haridwar 24 10 Hazard rate no series expansion used 3 Rajaji 18 7 half normal cosine adjustments of order 2 4 Lansdowne 14 5 uniform cosine adjustments of orders 2,3 5 Kalagarh 11 9 uniform Hermite polynomial adjustments of order 2, 4 6 Corbett 19 20 uniform Hermite polynomial adjustments of order 4 7 Ramnagar 10 7 half normal no series expansion used 8 Terai West 20 5 uniform cosine adjustments of orders 1,2 9 Terai East 11 6 half normal no series expansion used 10 Haldwani 11 7 uniform cosine adjustments of order 1 11 Champawat 16 9 hazard rate no series expansion used

Figure 3a: Detection probability arrived at using Figure 3b: Detection probability arrived at using box plot cut off and uniform model for box plot cut off and hazard rate model for Dehradun Forest Division Haridwar Forest Division

Figure 3c: Detection probability arrived at using Figure 3d: Detection probability arrived at using box plot cut off and half normal model for box plot cut off and uniform model for Rajaji National Park Lansdowne Forest Division

Figure 3e: Detection probability arrived at using Figure 3f: Detection probability arrived at using box plot cut off and uniform model for box plot cut off and uniform model for Kalagarh Forest Division Corbett National Park

Figure 3g: Detection probability arrived at using Figure 3h: Detection probability arrived at using box plot cut off and half normal model for box plot cut off and uniform model for Ramnagar Forest Division Terai West Forest Division

Figure 3i: Detection probability arrived at using box Figure 3j: Detection probability arrived at plot cut off and half normal model for using box plot cut off and uniform model for Terai East Forest Division Haldwani Forest Division

Figure 3k: Detection probability arrived at using box plot cut off and hazard rate model for Champawat Forest Division

Table 4: Model parameters and dung density estimates for different Forest Divisions in Uttarakhand

Forest GOF Divisions Model description AIC ESW/EDR D D LCL D UCL D CV Chi-p CI width SE Dehradun Uniform (cut off 24; bins 8) 515.8 10.41 487.0 287.0 826.0 0.25 0.338 538 122.7 Haridwar Hazard rate (cut off 24; bins 10) 1326.6 11.48 625.0 274.0 1423.0 0.41 0.663 1149 259.1 Rajaji Half normal (cut off 18; bins 7) 1911.7 6.86 1219.0 930.0 1599.0 0.14 0.150 669 164.7 Lansdowne Uniform (cut off 14; bins 5) 1725.9 4.45 5691.9 3851.4 8412.2 0.18 0.664 4561 1051.2 Kalagarh Uniform (cut off 11; bins 9) 2688.0 6.37 2901.1 2279.8 3692.1 0.12 0.841 1412 336.3 Corbett Uniform (cut off 19; bins 20) 6429.0 7.50 2758.0 1993.0 3817.0 0.16 0.052 1824 442.5 Ramnagar Half normal (cut off 10; bins 7) 746.1 6.81 808.0 494.0 1321.0 0.24 0.638 828 193.2 Terai West Uniform (cut off 20; bins 4) 349.1 8.19 421.5 205.2 865.8 0.36 0.341 660 150.1 Terai East Half normal (cut off 11; bin 6) 288.1 7.92 258.7 150.2 445.5 0.27 0.696 295 69.7 Haldwani Uniform (cut off 11; bins 7) 269.9 5.69 306.0 201.0 466.0 0.21 0.438 266 63.1 Champawat Hazard rate (cut off 16; bins 9) 525.1 7.93 757.0 251.0 2286.0 0.54 0.132 2036 405.1

AIC: Akaike Information Criterion value; ESW: Effective Strip Width; EDR: Effective Detection Radius, D: Mean dung density estimates/km2; LCL: Lower Confidence (95%) Limit; UCL: Upper Confidence (95%) limit; D CV: Coefficient of variation of average dung density estimates/km2; GOF Chi-p: P value of Chi Square Goodness of Fit test; CI width: Width of the 95% confidence interval; SE: Standard Error of mean dung density/km2

53 Estimated dung density was highest for Lansdowne FD followed by Kalagarh FD, Corbett NP, Rajaji NP and Ramnagar FD and the density estimates for Terai FDs and Haldwani FD were low. However, as mentioned earlier the high density estimated for Lansdowne FD could be due to sampling bias, through coverage of only a part of the landscape closer to Corbett Tiger Reserve that may fall under high elephant use area. The short length of transects walked to estimate the dung density could also have influenced the results through sampling bias towards beats with higher dung abundance; about 52% of the total transects walked in Lansdowne FD were only 50m in length and 24% were 100m.

This large proportion of small transects would have covered only open and high elephant use regions. Other areas with the problem of high estimates come from Kalagarh FD. Here both density estimates and elephant distribution area are high. However in Kalagarh FD; the transects are long, but they appeared to cover only open areas which are otherwise known to high elephant density regions. As Kalagarh FD is located in the northern and western regions of Corbett National Park the influence of high density could be expected; however experts feel (K.D. Kandpal, pers. comm.) that in Kalagarh FD, Palain and Adnala Ranges have low density of elephants as the terrain is mostly hilly.

The results of dung density estimates for Champawat FD show interesting insights; although the division is not connected to any high elephant density region (for example, Dehradun FD and Haridwar FD are connected to high elephant density region of Rajaji NP), the reported dung density for Champawat FD is higher than that of Dehradun FD and Haridwar FD. Out of 132 dung piles reported for Champawat FD, 47% come from a single beat and 97% from 3 beats. Elephant concentration is high only in some places; this pattern may be linked to elephants using certain areas as day time shelters (where the abundance of dung would be high) for the purpose of visiting surrounding villages at night. The patterns of dung density at the landscape scale corroborate the common perception that the region from Rajaji NP to Ramnagar FD is the core or high elephant density zone of the state, while Terai West FD, Terai East FD and Haldwani FD would fall under low density zone.

Elephant distribution area, density and population numbers for different divisions Elephant density & number estimates for each forest division are summarized in Table 5. Lansdowne FD has the highest elephant density, followed by Kalagarh FD and Corbett NP (both part of the greater Corbett Tiger Reserve-see Figures 4a & b for elephants sighted in Corbett Tiger Reserve), whereas Haldwani and Terai East FDs have the lowest elephant densities (Figure 5). Estimates of elephant distribution area based on information obtained from experienced ground staff indicates a total area of 4287 km2 or 33% of the total area of

a b

Figures 4a & b: Elephants sighted in Corbett Tiger Reserve; at Kalagarh (a), at Corbett NP (b) the divisions where elephants are reported for the state (see Table 4 for the details of elephant distribution area for each division). However, taking only 4057 km2 as elephant distribution

54 area by excluding Terai Central FD (229 km2), where line transect dung survey was not carried out, a total of 1636 elephants was initially estimated for the state.

Table 5: Elephant density, distribution area and elephant number estimated for different Forest Divisions in Uttarakhand

Elephant density Lower Upper Elephant Mean no. Lower Upper Forest (per limit limit distribution of limit limit Divisions km2) (1 SE) (1 SE) area (km2) elephants (1 SE) (1 SE) Dehradun 0.12 0.09 0.15 177.6 21 15 26 Haridwar 0.15 0.09 0.22 277.2 42 24 59 Rajaji 0.30 0.26 0.34 815.0 244 209 280 Lansdowne 1.40 0.85 1.96 310.2 434 349 521 Kalagarh 0.70 0.53 0.90 522.1 365 321 418 Corbett 0.68 0.56 0.79 515.8 349 290 408 Ramnagar 0.20 0.15 0.25 472.5 93 70 116 Terai West 0.10 0.07 0.14 243.8 25 16 34 Terai East 0.06 0.05 0.08 147.1 9 6 11 Haldwani 0.07 0.06 0.09 465.9 34 27 42 Champawat 0.19 0.08 0.29 111.6 20 9 31

There are however some problems to be resolved before the above estimate are accepted. In particular, the density estimates of Lansdowne FD appear to be very high (double that of Corbett Tiger Reserve) matching the high elephant density regions of southern India. If the density estimated for Lansdowne FD (1.4/km2) is extrapolated over the entire elephant distribution area of the division (which is 310 km2) a total of 434 elephants (1 SE range: 349- 521) is indicated. Such a high elephant density is highly unlikely and seems to have arisen from biased sampling. Local forest officials also were of the opinion that high numbers of elephants are not possible for Lansdowne FD.

Similarly for Kalagarh FD if density estimates are extrapolated over the entire elephant distribution area a total of 365 elephants are estimated this number appeared to be high and higher than the number estimated for Corbett National Park. One way of overcoming the problem of overestimation is to discard the results of Lansdowne FD and Kalagarh FD from the overall elephant number estimated for the state or to extrapolate elephant density only to a small area where transect survey was carried out for both these divisions. However, as estimated density itself is very high, extrapolation of elephant density even to a small area could lead to high numbers for the division. Given this, the following approach was adopted. As Lansdowne FD is sandwiched between the high density regions of Corbett NP and Rajaji NP, and Kalagarh FD adjoins Corbett National Park, the average density estimated from Rajaji and Corbett National Parks was used for estimating elephant density and number for Lansdowne and Kalagarh FD (Table 6).

Until the time of data processing at ANCF, the details of number of transects walked and other associated details for Terai Central FD were not available for data analysis; however, it is assumed that elephant density for the division would be less than 0.1 elephant/km2 This assumption is based on the densities reported for the divisions such as Terai West FD, Terai East FD and Haldwani FD (mean obtained from density of these three divisions was 0.1 with a lower limit (1 SE) of 0.06 and upper limit (1 SE) of 0.15). If we assume this density (Figure 6) for Terai Central FD, a total of 24 elephants, with minimum of 14 to a maximum of 34 elephants is estimated (Table 6). 55

Figure 5: Density estimates for different Forest Divisions in Uttarakhand

Figure 6: Elephant density estimates for different divisions in Uttarakhand with correction incorporated for Lansdowne, Kalagarh and Terai Central Forest Divisions

57 Table 6: Elephant density and number estimated for different forest divisions with correction incorporated for Lansdowne, Kalagarh and Terai Central Forest Divisions

Elephant Density Lower Upper Elephant Mean no. Lower Upper Forest (per Limit Limit Distribution of Limit Limit Divisions km2) (1SE) (1 SE) Area (km2) elephants (1SE) (1 SE) Dehradun 0.12 0.09 0.15 177.6 21 15 26 Haridwar 0.15 0.09 0.22 277.2 42 24 59 Rajaji 0.30 0.26 0.34 815 244 209 280 Lansdowne 0.49* 0.41 0.57 310.2 151 126 175 Kalagarh 0.49* 0.41 0.57 522.1 255 214 296 Corbett 0.68 0.56 0.79 515.8 349 290 408 Ramnagar 0.20 0.15 0.25 472.5 93 70 116 Terai West 0.10 0.07 0.14 243.8 25 16 34 Terai Central 0.11# 0.06 0.15 228.6 24 14 34 Terai East 0.06 0.05 0.08 147.1 9 6 11 Haldwani 0.07 0.06 0.09 465.8 34 27 42 Champawat 0.19 0.08 0.29 111.6 20 9 31 * Mean of density estimates of Rajaji and Corbett National Parks # Mean of density estimates of Terai West FD, Terai East FD and Haldwani FD

Elephant density and numbers for different zones Forest divisions were grouped under one of four zones (Figure 7) on the basis of habitat connectivity, use of corridors by elephants. Western Rajaji (along with Dehradun and Haridwar Forest divisions) and Eastern Rajaji currently are disconnected. Western Rajaji along with Haridwar and Dehradun could be considered as Zone 1. Elephants in Eastern Rajaji and Lansdowne may be isolated from other large patches of forest, together could be treated as Zone 2. Kalagarh FD, Corbett National Park, Ramnagar FD, Terai West FD and Terai Central FD could be treated as Zone 3. Terai East FD, Haldwani FD and Champawat FD are connected, but separated from the forest divisions located west of them; they could be brought under Zone 4. The results of elephant density estimates for different zones show that Zone 3 (Kalagarh FD, Corbett National Park, Ramnagar FD, Terai West FD and Terai Central FD) has the highest elephant density and Zone 4 to have the lowest. Elephant density estimates for different zones are given in the Table 7.

Table 7: Elephant density and distribution area for different zones in Uttarakhand

Elephant Density Lower Upper Elephant Mean no. Lower Upper (per Limit Limit Distribution of Limit Limit Zones km2) (1 SE) (1 SE) area (km2) elephants (1 SE) (1 SE) 1 0.18 0.15 0.22 1014.3 184 147 221 2 0.39 0.33 0.46 255.6 100 83 117 3 0.45 0.39 0.51 1754.0 791 687 894 4 0.09 0.07 0.12 723.8 68 50 87 Lansdowne 0.49* 0.41 0.57 310.2 151 126 175 Terai Central 0.11# 0.06 0.15 228.6 24 14 34 * Mean of density estimates of Rajaji and Corbett National Parks # Mean of density estimates of Terai West FD, Terai East FD and Haldwani FD

Figure 7: Map showing different zones identified for density estimation

59 Elephant density and numbers estimated for entire Uttarakhand In addition to individual division and zone-wise data processing, all transects (227 with 412 segments) were pooled together to obtain an overall dung density and resultant elephant numbers for the state as a whole. This approach was essential, as the influence of pooling of all the transects in estimating elephant numbers are not known. It is assumed that this approach could add some more insights to estimating elephant density using indirect count and may improve the basic design of planning of transects for each division or zone or the entire state.

Optimal model parameters and dung density for Uttarakhand Using 4181 observations (dung piles along transects), 16 m truncation (by box plot method) and 6 bins (see Table 8) the uniform model with cosine adjustments of orders 1,2,3,4 provide a best fit (see figure 8). With an effective width of 6.13m, a dung density of 1523/km2 was estimated (Table 8).

Table 8: Model parameters and dung density estimates for Uttarakhand

S. no Parameters Outcome 1 Total distance covered (km2) 224 2 Number of transects 227 3 Number of observations 4181 4 Truncation distance by box plot method (m) 16 5 Number of bins 6 6 Detection function Uniform 7 Series expansion Cosine adjustments of orders 1,2,3,4 8 AIC 12515 9 ESW/EDR 6.13 10 Dung density/km2 1523 11 D LCL 1275 12 D UCL 1820 13 D CV 0.09 14 GOF Chi-p 0.18 15 CI width 544.9 16 Standard Error 137.9

Figure 8: Detection probability arrived at using box plot cut off and uniform model for entire Uttarakhand 60

Elephant numbers for Uttarakhand Table 9 provides details of elephant density, elephant distribution area and total number of elephants for the state (see Figures 9a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k &l for elephant sighted in different forest divisions). An elephant density of 0.37 elephants/km2 could be estimated for the state; with this a total of 1502, with a lower limit (1SE) 1339 elephants and an upper limit (1 SE) of 1664 elephants could be estimated for the state.

Table 9: Elephant density, distribution area and elephant number estimated for Uttarakhand

Lower Upper Elephant Total no. Lower Upper Elephant Limit Limit Distribution of Limit Limit Density/km2 (1 SE) (1 SE) area (km2) Elephants (1 SE) (1 SE) 0.37 0.33 0.41 4058.7 1502 1339 1664

In view of the skewing due to factors that over estimated density for Lansdowne division, the division was excluded from data processing and an elephant density of 0.31animals/km2 was arrived. However, the results of Lansdowne FD and Terai Central FD included along with the results obtained using only other division. With this approach for 4287 km2 elephant distribution area a total of 1415 elephant was estimated, with a lower limit (1 SE) of 1244 elephants and an upper limit (1 SE) of 1586 elephants estimated for the state (Table 10). This is a conservative estimate of the elephant population of the state.

Table 10: Elephant density, distribution area and elephant number estimated including Lansdowne and Terai Central Forest Divisions of Uttarakhand

Elephant Lower Upper Elephant Total no. Lower Upper Density/ Limit Limit Distributio of Limit Limit km2 (1 SE) (1 SE) n Area Elephants (1 SE) (1 SE) Without Lansdowne & Terai Central 0.31 0.28 0.35 3748.6 1240 1104 1377 Lansdowne 0.49* 0.41 0.57 310.2 151 126 175 Terai Central 0.11# 0.06 0.15 228.6 24 14 34 4287.3 1415 1244 1586 * Mean of density estimates of Rajaji and Corbett National Parks # Mean of density estimates of Terai West FD, Terai East FD and Haldwani FD

a b 61 c d

e f

g h

i j

k l

Figures 9a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k & l: Elephants sighted as herds or individual/s or as their signs in different forest divisions

Lessons leant from estimating elephant numbers using indirect (dung) count method It is important to put in an extra effort to cover the division area uniformly. The minimum length of the transect should be 1km considering the landscape features. In rugged and areas with very steep slopes laying 1km straight lines may not be possible. In such locations the length should not be less than 500m. In very difficult situations, the length can be a minimum of 250m; anything below this length could adversely bias the sampling.

Short transects are known to cover only a small percentage of the area, or the areas that are easily accessible; short length transects may be biased towards locations convenient for the observer. If transects that are planned are biased and go through small area, and their lengths are very small (say 50 m), this could influence the encounter rate heavily.

This could lead to low or high encounter rates. In Lansdowne FD, both problems were encountered; only a small percentage of area of the divisions was covered and many transects with length of only 50meters were used for sampling. However in Kalagarh FD the transects were long, but they appeared to cover only open areas or high elephant density regions. Many precautions thus have to be taken in understanding and executing the operation of estimating elephant density through indirect count.

Recommendations a) Carry out dung decay rate experiments at 3-4 forest divisions spread across the state over an extended time period of at least 4 to 6 months. Adequate number of dung samples has to be marked at regular intervals and monitored in order to maximize reliability of results. b) Given the very low dung decay rates during the dry season, formulate and execute a different method of elephant density estimation from two line transect surveys for dung density, one survey at the beginning of the dry season and the second survey about 3-4 months later with more precise estimate of dung decay rate in the intervening period. c) Ensure that all forest divisions with elephants follow similar field methods in line transect estimation of dung density. d) It is important to know the actual elephant area, and eliminate those areas where elephants are not found or which elephants do not use. If this has to be done using transects, the transects should cover all the locations across the landscape in a given

63 division. However the practical problems such as inaccessibility, road network, distanced to be covered to lay a single transect, severely influence the selection of transects.

5c. Elephant distribution area

Background A key requirement for estimating the elephant population for Uttarakhand is to know the actual area of distribution of the species. Errors in estimation of elephant distribution area for a given division may significantly change elephant population estimate especially in high density forest divisions. However, detailed spatial information on elephant distribution in the state was not available prior to this study. Therefore, an attempt was made using two approaches to determine the elephant distribution area for the state.

Elephant distribution area based on knowledge of field staff In Uttarakhand 12 forest divisions report elephants. The total area of these 12 divisions is 13,180 km2 of which 4,287 km2 (about 33%) was identified as elephant distribution area from information provided by the field staff. Corbett National Park has 98% under elephant distribution area followed by Rajaji National Park (94%) and Ramnagar Division (81%). Divisions such as such as Champawat and Terai East have less than 10% area under elephant distribution. Interestingly the Lansdowne division, sandwiched between high elephant density regions Rajaji and Corbett National Parks, has only 24% of elephant distribution area. The results of elephant distribution also suggest that except for Lansdowne the region between Rajaji up to Ramnagar is the major elephant region for Uttarakhand. Elephant distribution area with different scales (high, medium & low) is given in the Figure 1.

Elephant Distribution Based on Kernel Density Estimator This method (Kernel Density Estimator) computed a total area of 5366 km2 (40% of total area of 11 divisions) as constituting the elephant distribution area for Uttarakhand. Corbett National Park has 99.7% of its area under elephant distribution followed by Rajaji National Park (87.7% area) and Kalagarh (76.9% area). Champawat FD has less than 10% area under elephant distribution. Total elephant distribution area for the state calculated by kernel density estimator method (5366 km2 or 40% of total area of forest divisions) was greater than the estimation based on knowledge of field staff (4287 km2 or 32.5% of divisional area), though the patterns of distribution are similar (Figure 2). This was noticeable for Dehradun, Haridwar, Lansdowne, Terai West and Terai East Forest Divisions. Corbett had the highest elephant distribution area, followed by Rajaji and Terai East, while Champawat FD had the least area. Elephant distribution based on Kernel Density Estimator is given in Figure 3.

6.4 Champawat 9.3 Haldwani 72.4 8.9 64.3 Terai East 19.8 Terai Central 20.1 18.0 23.3 Terai West 43.8 81.2 Ramnagar 74.5 67.4 Kalagarh 76.9 98.7 Corbett 23.7 99.7 Landsdowne 43.0 93.8 Rajaji 13.7 87.7 Haridwar 27.4 20.5 Dehradun 42.7

0 20 40 60 80 100 Field staff Knowledge Kernal density estimator

Figure 2: Comparison of percentage area under elephant distribution based on Kernel Density Estimator and knowledge of field staff for different Forest Divisions in Uttarakhand

Figure 1: Elephant Distribution Area with different scales (high, medium and low) of distribution in different forest divisions of Uttarakhand

Figure 3: Elephant Distribution Area arrived based on Kernel Density Estimator (using dung encounter rate) for different forest divisions of Uttarakhand

Comparison of results of field staff knowledge and Kernel density estimator There may be some bias related to using kernel density estimator or any approach that follows a similar logic to estimate the elephant distribution through dung encounter rate. If there is a bias in laying transects (transect being very small or covering only a small part of the division or covering only high elephant density regions of the division), this may influence the results substantially. This is very clear from the results obtained for Lansdowne division. The results obtained by kernel density estimator may also be related only to a specific season as it considered the encounter rate obtained in a specific season. The result may vary during other seasons. As mentioned elsewhere, elephant distribution details obtained from field staff is based on their long experience, that includes an understanding of the overall patterns of seasonal and altitudinal variations in elephant distribution. Hence, the area of elephant distribution using knowledge of field staff could be much more appropriate in estimation of elephant population.

Elephant distribution and density The results of elephant distribution area for Uttarakhand using ground knowledge from the field staff, matched with the pattern of elephant densities. The lowest density of elephants came from Terai East, which has the least elephant distribution area. High elephant density is estimated from Corbett which has a high proportion of elephant area. The correlation between elephant distribution area and elephant density was done using Pearson's product-moment correlation and results show (Figure 4) that they are significantly correlated (Pearson's r = 0.62, t = 2.50, df = 10, p = 0.031).

Figure 4: Correlation between elephant distribution and elephant densities in different divisions in Uttarakhand

Without incorporating the elephant distribution area, a total of about 3555 elephants would be arrived at for the state; however, more realistically by incorporating elephant distribution area an estimate of 1415 elephants is made for Uttarakhand.

Elephant distribution in relation to different elevation ranges in Uttarakhand Elephant distribution map developed based on field staff knowledge was superimposed on elevation map (Figures 5 & 6) to understand the significance of elevation in relation to the patterns of specific preference of elevation by elephants in this landscape. The elevation of the study area (12 forest divisions where elephants are found) ranged from 80 to 2100m, while elephants are distributed from an altitude of about 200m to 1450m, with most elephants being found between 200m and 800m. Elephant distribution across this altitudinal range was as follows: 200-400m (39% of elephants in the state), 400-600 (35%) and 600-800 (18%). Only a small proportion of elephants in the state are found above 800m. The distribution of elephants in relation to elevation can also be examined from the point of presence/absence of elephants across different altitudinal zones. For instance, the high percentage of low lands where no elephants are reported is obviously related to a large part, particularly the terai region being under settlement and cultivation, and not available to elephants.

40 % Study area 30 % Elephant distribution area % Non elephant area

20 Percentage

599 199 299 399 499 699 799 899 999

1099 1199 1299 1399 1499 1599 1699 1799 1899 1999 2099 2199 2230 Elevation (m)

Figure 5: Patterns of elephant distribution in different elevation ranges for Uttarakhand

Figure 6: Elephant distribution and different elevation ranges for different forest divisions in Uttarakhand

6. Elephant density and distribution for different forest divisions in Utttarakhand

72 Dehradun Forest Division

For Dehradun Forest Division, 15 grids and 15 transects were proposed. Four ranges and 15 beats were covered for transect survey, 14 transects (as 21 segments) were walked with a mean length 673.1 (SE = 63.0) m, 500 m transects dominated (38 %), followed by 1km (27%), 200m transects covered only 5%. Mixed and Sal forests were encountered in the transects and these transects dominated (53 %) in mixed forest.

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Dehradun Forest Division

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Dehradun Forest Division

A total of 144 observations were made and in 4 segments or transects no dung piles were found. The highest encounter of dung piles was reported in beats Gola2; here, encounter rate/km was 40, beats such as Sainkot 3, Chandi also appeared to show high encounter rate in this division.

Medium Elephant distribution area dominated followed by low elephant distribution area for this division.

Map showing elephant distribution for Dehradun Forest Division

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 867.6 Elephant distribution area (km2) 177.6 Elephant distribution area (%) 20.5 High distribution area (km2) 0.0 Medium distribution area (km2) 85.5 Low distribution area (km2) 92.1 Number of transect walked 14 Number of segments of transects 21 Distance covered (km) 14.2 Number of observations 144 Encounter rate (/km) 10.0 Elephant density (km2) 0.15 Elephant number 21 Lower limit (1 SE) 15 Upper limit (1 SE) 26

Haridwar Forest Division

For Haridwar Forest Division, 23 grids and 23 transects were proposed. Five ranges and 18 beats were covered, and a total distance of 22.45 km was walked by 24 transects (with a total of 42 segments), 500m transects dominated (26%) followed by 1000m (14%). Mean segment length was 534. 5 (SE=36.0) m ranging from 150m to 1000m. Forest type encountered during the transect surveys were mixed forest, mixed forest with grass lands, eucalyptus with mixed forest, swamps and teak plantations. Mixed forest dominated followed by the category of mixed forest and eucalyptus and mixed forest and grassland.

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Haridwar Forest Division

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Haridwar Forest Division 75

A total of 322 observations were made and an encounter rate of 18.8 km was estimated for the division, varying from 0 to 200 observations. Nineteen segments or transects did not encounter any dung piles, beats such as Shyampur, Sajanpur and Sidh encountered more dung piles.

Low elephant distribution area dominated followed by medium elephant distribution area for this division.

Map showing elephant distribution for Haridwar Forest Division

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 2023.0 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 277.2 Elephant distribution area (%) 13.7 High distribution area (km2) 101.6 Medium distribution area (km2) 22.3 Low distribution area (km2) 153.2 Number of transect walked 14 Number of segments of transects 21 Distance covered (km) 22.5 Number of observations 322 Encounter rate (/km) 14.0 2 Elephant density (km ) 0.19 Elephant number 42 Lower limit (1 SE) 24 Upper limit (1 SE) 59

Rajaji National Park

For Rajaji National Park, 44 grids and 44 transects were proposed. Nine ranges and 36 beats were covered for the survey and a total of 40 transects as 49 segments were walked. A mean length of 786.7 m (SE= 42.0) was covered with segment size ranging from 150 m to 1000 meter. 1000 meter transects dominated (59%) followed by 600 and 400m (6% each). Vegetation types encountered in the transect were mixed forest (80%); Sal forest (9%), Sal mixed forest (2%), teak plantation (4%) and riverine forest (2%).

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Rajaji National Park

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Rajaji National Park

A total of 585 observations were made and no dung piles were seen in 4 segments, which mainly came from Ramgarh range.

High elephant distribution area dominated followed by medium elephant distribution area in Rajaji NP.

Map showing elephant distribution for Rajaji National Park

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 869.3 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 815.0 Elephant distribution area (%) 93.8 High distribution area (km2) 661.2 Medium distribution area (km2) 84.7 Low distribution area (km2) 69.1 Number of transect walked 36 Number of segments of transects 49 Distance covered (km) 35.0 Number of observations 593 Encounter rate (/km) 17.0 Elephant density (km2) 0.30 Elephant number 244 Lower limit (1 SE) 209 Upper limit (1 SE) 280

Lansdowne Forest Division

For Lansdowne Forest Division, 16 grids and 16 transects were proposed. Four ranges and 18 beats were covered; 14 transects as 121 segments were walked covering a distance of 13.5 km. Mean segment size was 112 m (SE=12.5) ranging from 30 m to 1000m, 50m segments dominated (52%) followed by 100m (24%). Forest types reported during the transects were mixed forest, Sal forest and teak plantations; among them mixed forest dominated (67 %).

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Lansdowne Forest Division

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Lansdowne Forest Division

A total of 694 dung piles were encountered with a mean encounter rate of 68.4/km (SE 6.4 and 32 segments or transects reported a dung count encounter rate of 360 dung piles/km and in 21 segments, no dung piles were seen.

Medium elephant distribution area dominated followed by low elephant distribution area in this division.

Map showing elephant distribution for Lansdowne Forest Division

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 1308.0 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 310.2 Elephant distribution area (%) 23.7 High distribution area (km2) 25.2 Medium distribution area (km2) 230.6 Low distribution area (km2) 54.3 Number of transect walked 14 Number of segments of transects 121 Distance covered (km) 13.7 Number of observations 752 Encounter rate (/km) 51.0 Elephant density (km2) 0.49 Elephant number 151 Lower limit (1 SE) 126 Upper limit (1 SE) 175

Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR)

Kalagarh Forest Division and Corbett National Park fall under Corbett Tiger Reserve. For Kalagarh FD, 27 grids and 27 transects were proposed. Four ranges, 15 beats and 18 transects (as 26 segments) were covered and mean segment length was 666.6m (SE= 66.8) ranging from 150 to 1000m, of which 1000m transect dominated (41%). Grassland with scrub forest, mixed forest, Sal forest and mixed forest were encountered in the transect; and Sal forest dominated (54%). For Corbett NP, 31 grids and 31 transects were proposed. Six ranges, 29 beats and 31 transects (as 37 segments) were covered. Mean segment size was 785.1 m (SE= 60.3), ranging from 150m to 1000 m; 1000 m transect dominated (49%) followed by 200m (7%). Transects dominated in Sal mixed forest (36%), followed by grassland (27.7%) and mixed forest (17%).

a b Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Corbett Tiger Reserve;- Kalagarh Forest Division (a), Corbett National Park (b)

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Corbett Tiger Reserve

In Kalagarh, a total of 665 observations were made, mean encounter rate of dung piles was 43.2 (SE = 8.6) dung/km ranging from 0 to 230/km. Only one segment reported no dung piles; beats such as Vatanbasa, Dhaulkhand and Hathikundu reported encounter rate of above 60/km. In Corbett National Park, a total of 1201 of observations were made. Encounter rate of dung piles/km ranged from 0 to 136/km with a mean encounter rate of 45.1 (SE = 7.5) and 2 segments encountered no dung piles. Beats such as Dhikala, Dhara/12, Jhirina/1 and Khinannauli reported an encounter rate of dung piles above 100/km.

Medium elephant distribution area dominated followed by low elephant distribution area in Kalagarh division. In Corbett NP, the high elephant distribution area dominated followed by medium elephant distribution area.

Map showing elephant distribution for Corbett Tiger Reserve

Summary Statistics

Kalagarh Corbett NP Total area of the division (km2) 774.2 522.6 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 522.1 515.9 Elephant distribution area (%) 67.4 98.7 High distribution area (km2) 70.1 235.8 Medium distribution area (km2) 353.8 212.8 Low distribution area (km2) 98.2 67.2 Number of transect walked 18 30 Number of segments of transects 27 37 Distance covered (km) 18.0 29.1 Number of observations 667 1259 Encounter rate (/km) 37.0 41.0 Elephant density (km2) 0.49 0.68 Elephant number 255 349 Lower limit (1 SE) 214 290 Upper limit (1 SE) 296 480 82

Ramnagar Forest Division

For Ramnagar Forest Division, 27 grids and 27 transects were proposed. Five ranges, 18 beats and 18 transects (as 18 segments) were covered. Transects covered micro habitat such as mixed forest, Sal forests, and other forests. Transects dominated in Mixed forest (50%).

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Ramnagar Forest Division

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Ramnagar Forest Division

A total of 198 observations were made. Encounter rate ranged from 0 to 35 with a mean of 11 dung piles/km (SE=2.6). Hathipandi, upper Kosi, Dhubla and Kanera beats reported a high dung encounter rate.

Medium elephant distribution area dominated followed by high elephant distribution area in this division.

Map showing elephant distribution for Ramnagar Forest Division

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 581.6 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 472.5 Elephant distribution area (%) 81.2 High distribution area (km2) 68.6 Medium distribution area (km2) 354.3 Low distribution area (km2) 49.6 Number of transect walked 18 Number of segments of transects 18 Distance covered (km) 18.0 Number of observations 198 Encounter rate (/km) 11.0 Elephant density (km2) 0.20 Elephant number 93 Lower limit (1 SE) 70 Upper limit (1 SE) 116

Terai West Forest Division

For Terai West Forest Division, 19 grids and 19 transects were proposed. Five ranges, 20 beats and 20 transects (as 20 segments) were covered. Forest type dominated with mixed forest (40%) followed by Sal forest (25%) and teak plantation covered 15 % of the transects walked.

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Terai West Forest Division

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Terai West Forest Division

A total of 143 dung piles were encountered, with mean encounter rate of 7.15 (SE= 2.53)/km, 5 transects encountered no dung piles and beats such as Jaspur, 45, 43A and 41 encountered above 30 dung piles/km, ranging from 0 to 37 dung piles/km.

Low elephant distribution area dominated followed by medium elephant distribution area in this division.

Map showing elephant distribution for Terai West Forest Division

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 1044.2 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 243.8 Elephant distribution area (%) 23.3 High distribution area (km2) 42.9 Medium distribution area (km2) 65.1 Low distribution area (km2) 135.8 Number of transect walked 20 Number of segments of transects 20 Distance covered (km) 20.0 Number of observations 143 Encounter rate (/km) 7.0 Elephant density (km2) 0.10 Elephant number 25 Lower limit (1 SE) 16 Upper limit (1 SE) 34

Terai Central Forest Division

For Terai Central Forest Division, 17 grids and 17 transects were proposed. However no transect was walked.

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Terai Central Forest Division

Map showing girds without any transects

Low elephant distribution area dominated followed by medium elephant distribution area for this division.

Map showing elephant distribution for Terai Central Forest Division

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 1135.3 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 228.6 Elephant distribution area (%) 20.1 High distribution area (km2) 5.7 Medium distribution area (km2) 30.0 Low distribution area (km2) 192.9 Number of transect walked 0 Number of segments of transects NA* Distance covered (km) NA* Number of observations NA* Encounter rate (/km) NA* Elephant density (km2) 0.11 Elephant number 24 Lower limit (1 SE) 14 Upper limit (1 SE) 34

NA*: Not applicable

Terai East Forest Division

For Terai East Forest Division, 12 grids and 12 transects were proposed. Three ranges, 18 beats, 20 transects (each of 1000m) were covered. Mixed forest dominated (65%) followed by Sal (20%) in the transects walked.

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Terai East Forest Division

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Terai East Forest Division

A total of 82 observations were made. Mean encounter rate of 4.1 (SE = 1.04)/km ranging from 0 to 12 was reported for the division and about 40% transects did not report dung piles. Beats such as west Kilpura and east Kilpura 17th plot had dung encounter rate of above 12 piles/km.

Low elephant distribution area dominated followed by medium elephant distribution area in this division.

Map showing elephant distribution for Terai East Forest Division

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 1655.8 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 147.1

Elephant distribution area (%) 8.9 High distribution area (km2) 0

Medium distribution area (km2) 29.9 Low distribution area (km2) 117.2

Number of transect walked 20 Number of segments of transects 20 Distance covered (km) 20.0 Number of observations 82 Encounter rate (/km) 4.0 Elephant density (km2) 0.06 Elephant number 9 Lower limit (1 SE) 6 Upper limit (1 SE) 11

Haldwani Forest Division

For Haldwani Forest Division, 30 grids and 30 transects were proposed. Five ranges 22 beats and 23 transects (as 30 segments) were covered. The transect size ranged from 250 to 1000m; 1000m dominated (57%) followed by 500m (30%) with a mean transect length of 766.6m (SE= 50.5). Transects covered forests such as mixed forests, Sal mixed, Sal and teak, and mixed forest dominated (50%) followed by Sal with mixed forest (29%).

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Haldwani Forest Division

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Haldwani Forest Division

An encounter of 4.75/km (SE= 0.86) ranging from 0 to 16 dung piles/km was reported for the division and beats such as Kholgarh block and Chila reported encounter rate of dung pile above 10/km.

Medium elephant distribution area dominated followed by high elephant distribution area in this division.

Map showing elephant distribution for Haldwani Forest Division

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 643.5 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 465.8 Elephant distribution area (%) 72.4 High distribution area (km2) 119.4 Medium distribution area (km2) 232.7 Low distribution area (km2) 113.7 Number of transect walked 23 Number of segments of transects 30 Distance covered (km) 23.0 Number of observations 87 Encounter rate (/km) 3.0 Elephant density (km2) 0.07 Mean Elephant number 34 Lower limit (1 SE) 27 Upper limit (1 SE) 42

Champawat Forest Division

Champawat Forest Division, 9 grids and 9 transects were proposed. However, 11 transects (as 27 segments) in 2 ranges and 10 beats were walked. Mean length of segment was 407.4 (SE = 41.2) m, 250 m segment or transect dominated (52%) followed by 500 m (41 %) and 1000m transect was only 7%. Seventy per cent of transects covered in Sal & mixed forest and 25% was through mixed forest.

Map showing sampling grids & transects selected for estimating elephant dung density in Champawat Forest Division

Map showing sampling locations & number of transects walked in Champawat Forest Division

A total 138 observations were made and 14 segments (55.5%) did not encounter any dung piles, transects located in beats such as East Dulagad, west Dulagad, Mathiabanj, East Kalaunia and Chila encounter dung piles and it ranged from 12 to 66 dung piles/km.

Medium elephant distribution area dominated followed by high elephant distribution area for this division.

Map showing elephant distribution for Champawat Forest Division

Summary Statistics

Total area of the division (km2) 1755.1 Elephant distribution area (Km2) 111.6 Elephant distribution area (%) 6.4 High distribution area (km2) 40.7 Medium distribution area (km2) 52.8 Low distribution area (km2) 18.1 Number of transect walked 11 Number of segments of transects 27 Distance covered (km) 11.0 Number of observations 137 Encounter rate (/km) 12.0 Elephant density (km2) 0.19 Mean Elephant number 20 Lower limit (1 SE) 9 Upper limit (1 SE) 31

7. Training programme and capacity building in estimating elephant numbers conducted for forest officials from Uttarakhand 95

Background Estimating elephant numbers for the state of Uttarakhand using line transect indirect (dung) count method was proposed to be conducted over the period 24th Feb to 6th March 2012. There was a need for planning the laying and walking of transects that would cover each division and empowering the field staff with the method and training for laying and monitoring of line transects. For this purpose, the entire area of Uttarakhand was brought under four Training sites. Training sites were identified considering the logistical support and proximity of forest division to a given training site.

It was proposed to conduct a training programme and the planning of the number of transects to be covered and man power allocation for Corbett Tiger Reserve and Ramnagar division in Ramnagar on the 16th February 2012. For Lansdowne and part of Kalagarh FD planning and training were conducted on 18th February 2012 at Saneh. For Dehradun, Haridwar and Rajaji, the training program was conducted on 21st February 2012 at Chilla. For Haldwani, Terai East, Central, West and Champawat Forest Divisions, the training was conducted at Chorgalia (Figure 1) on 23rd February 2102.

Including the resource persons, a total of 261 people participated in these training programmes oriented for a total of 12 forest divisions, sub-divisions and National parks and about 85% of the participants were field staff that included Range Forest Officers, Foresters, Forest Guard and Forest Watchers (see Table 1 for details of training sites, participants and associated aspects).

Each day-long training program given to the forest department staff composed of a theory and a practical component. The participants at the meeting comprised of officers of the rank of SDO, Range Officers and beat staff. Concepts of line transect, the need for and the mode of execution of the exercise was discussed. Participants were then taken to the field (forest), where the practical aspects of laying a straight line transect, recording the GPS points and measuring the dung distance and other facts of line transect indirect count were demonstrated and discussed.

The formulae for estimating elephant density using indirect dung count method were introduced. The indirect dung count method involves collecting data of defecation rate of elephants, dung decay rate and dung density estimates. The methods of collecting data for each parameter were introduced. Initially, it was proposed to carry out defecation rate experiments using 16 captive elephants kept in Rajaji National Park, Corbett Tiger Reserve and Haldwani Forest Division. As this exercise was not carried out due to logistical problems and other reasons, it was proposed to use the results of defecation rate calculated in another part of the country.

The protocol to be followed for estimating decay rate in Uttarakhand was introduced to all the participants. As the information on defecation rate was available from literature, and the decay rate experiment for Uttarakhand was under progress, focus on establishing transects to estimate elephant dung density was given priority. Here need for establishing a straight line was emphasized, as the straight lines are important to estimate perpendicular distance through which effective area sampled could be calculated. Also, the role it plays in understanding the concept of probability distribution function was explained. Another important aspect of the straight line transect was that it (the straight line) acted as a tool for random selection of microhabitats. If the lines were not straight, there may be a tendency for the observer to use or walk a path which was convenient and therefore the sampling lines may not go through different microhabitats.

Figure 1: Map showing locations of training sites and forest divisions close to them

97 Table 1: Details of training sites and participation

Staff under S.No Training site Date training Organisations Participants Total SDO/ CF/ Park Field Resource CCF Directors DFO/DD wardens Staff Researchers persons Corbett NP, Kalagarh sub- division, Ramnagar FD, Uttarakhand Terai West FD & FD, ANCF, Part of Kalagarh WWF-India 1 Ramnagar 16-02-2012 FD and WTI 2 2 2 3 47 8 3 67 Lansdowne FD & Part of Kalagarh Uttarakhand 2 Saneh 18-02-2012 FD FD & ANCF 1 2 47 3 53

Rajaji National Park, Dehradun FD & Haridwar Uttarakhand 3 Chilla 21-02-2012 FD FD & ANCF 1 1 1 3 61 3 70 Haldwani FD, Terai Central FD, Uttarakhand Terai East FD & FD, ANCF & 4 Chorgalia 23-02-2012 Champawat FD WWF-India 1 1 55 2 2 61

210 251 CCF: Chief Conservator of Forests, CF: Conservator of Forests, DFO: Divisional Forest Officer, DD: Deputy Directors, SDO: Sub-Divisional Officers WTI: Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi, Field staff include Range Forest Officers, Foresters, Forest Guards and Watchers

Training –Theory The following concepts were presented to the participants 1. Goal Capacity building for Uttarakhand forest department staff in Asian elephant population monitoring

2. Specific Objective To train the field staff of Uttarakhand forest department in line-transect indirect count method of estimating elephant numbers.

3. Sampling Design The study area is divided into grids of equal area using GIS. These grids are overlaid on range and beat maps provided by the forest department. Within each grid of area 20 km² a straight line-transect of 1 km is laid. Transects are laid only in grids with known elephant presence. This information was obtained from range and beat officers of each division. The grids encompassed varied habitat, vegetation and terrain types.

4. Introduction to line transect A line transect is a distance sampling technique that is used extensively to obtain animal population estimates. The object of measure in a line transect could be the animal itself, in which case it is line-transect direct count or it could be signs left behind by the animal in question, in which case it is line-transect indirect count. The latter method was followed in Uttarakhand wherein a one-off transect is laid with the help of a compass, GPS and 50 m nylon rope. Indirect count method is a highly efficient method to estimate elephant densities in areas where elephants cannot be seen easily mostly due to forest cover and undulating terrain. A straight line transect is laid in each grid and the perpendicular distance of the dung piles encountered during the survey to the straight line is measured and recorded. From the transect survey, data regarding the number of dung piles encountered along the transect and distance of each dung pile to the transect is available. From this data, elephant density in an area is estimated using the formula given below;

ED = (DD × DDR)/ DfR where, ED is the elephant density per unit area DD is the dung density per unit area DfR is the dung defecation rate per day DDR is the dung decay rate per day

Dung density is arrived at from the indirect line-transect method (brief description of methodology regarding data collection is given in methods section). DD is the number of dung piles per unit area surveyed. From the perpendicular distance measurements of the dung piles encountered along the transect, an average width (W) of the transect is obtained. From the known length of the transect (L), i.e. 1 km, and the calculated width, the area of the sampled area (a) is calculated as L × W. The number of dung piles encountered along each transect is then divided by the area (a) to estimate dung density in the surveyed area.

5. Walking the line Laying and walking a transect walk requires four trained personnel, a GPS, a compass, 10m measuring tape, 50m nylon rope and a data sheet. Based on the information from the beat officer, the starting location of transect and direction of the same in each grid is decided a priori. Presence of elephant/dung pile, possibility of walking 1 km in a straight line, and sampling from 2 or more beats within a grid, form the basis for establishing a transect location and direction. Specific duties are assigned to each member of the team who will be 99 referred to as LT1, LT2, LT3 and LT4 hereinafter. LT1 will hold one end of the 50m rope and stand at the start location of transect, a GPS reading will be taken at this point. LT2, with a compass will set the direction of transect from the start location and will locate the dung pile/s as and when encountered along the transect, LT3 will walk along the specified direction for 50m in a straight line simultaneously clearing any vegetation in the path, just enough for one person to move easily. LT4 will accompany LT2, with a GPS and measuring tape and start walking along this 50m rope. On LT2 spotting a dung pile LT4 will measure the distance of the dung pile from the 50m rope at an angle perpendicular to the rope using the measuring tape. A GPS reading of the dung pile will also be taken by LT4. LT2 will then record these details including number of dung piles and distance from rope in the data sheet. On reaching the end of the 50m rope i.e. where LT4 is standing the same process is repeated until a distance of a km is walked, i.e., the process is repeated 20 times. Other details recorded in the data sheet include, Names of the Protected Area, Range, Beat and Observers, weather conditions, total distance walked, prominent vegetation type and terrain type (see Figures 2a, b, c & d for classroom sessions carried out).

a b

c d

Figures 2a, b, c & d: Classroom sessions conducted; Chief Conservator Forests introducing the concepts (a), discussions with the participants on the various aspects of the subject (b) resource person interacting with the participants (c), one of the participants, recalling the subject learned (d)

Training-Practice The theory component of the training program was followed by practical sessions (Figures 3a, b, c, d, e & f and Figures 4a & b). In this session the forest department staff were trained on walking the line transect and collecting data in addition to using a compass to fix direction and GPS to mark locations. The staff were divided into teams of 20 to 25 members each and were taken to the nearby forest patch with known elephant presence.

100

The local beat officer was consulted on the preferable start location of transect based on the criterion for the selection of the transect line within a grid. At the start location, the team members were trained on using the compass and GPS and a detailed explanation of the data that needed to be entered including marking each 50m segment on completion in the data sheet. All the components of the line transect as described in section 5 was emulated in practice.

a b

c d

e f

Figures 3a, b, c, d, e & f: Practical sessions conducted during the training programme; discussions of the subjects at the field sites (a, b, c & d), training on the usage of field equipments related to estimating elephant dung density using line transect (e), demonstration of line transect survey at the field (f) 101

a b

Figures 4a & b: Practical raining of participants in data collection- learning about the usage of field equipment and their functioning (a) filling up data sheets & training on using GIP equipment (b)

In the field, however, the observer will have to be trained to deal efficiently with certain challenges that the biology of the animal, and the environment in which it lives, throws at him or her. Some of the most common challenges faced and possible remedial measures that one can take while walking the line transect are given below;

1. Encountering a large number of dung piles at one location Firstly, the observer must know the difference between a dung pile and a dung bolus. A dung pile on an average is made of 6 to 7 dung bolus‟. If a dung pile is found to have more than 7 dung bolus it should be considered as two piles and separate readings need to be recorded for each of the piles. Also, the perpendicular distance measured from the line should be taken to the centre of a dung pile.

2. A string of dung bolus’ This usually happens when an elephant is moving and each dung bolus is dropped a small distance away from another. In such a situation, measure the distance of the dung bolus that is at the centre of the string to the line. Consider this to be a single dung pile.

3. Spotting dung Only dung piles that are visible from the line need to be recorded. Any dung pile that is seen from the location of dung sighted from the line should not be recorded. The observer also needs to maintain a slow and steady pace and keep glancing left and right of the line with his or her eyes throughout the length of the transect.

4. Dung pile on the line If the centre of the dung pile lies exactly on the line, the perpendicular distance measure will be zero.

5. Terrain In an area like the Shivaliks, with gorges and impassable rivers and cliffs laying a 1 km straight line transect is nearly impossible. Firstly, the observer in consultation with the beat officer must decide on a path or direction in which a km long straight line could be walked. In the absence of such a space, a km long transect line could be split into a maximum of 4 segments (of equal or unequal lengths). Each segment must be separated from one another by a minimum distance of 100m. Make sure that the segments are not 102

parallel to one another and are laying in a way to cover the entire grid. Record the data for each segment in a separate data sheet and mention the transect and segment number.

Most importantly, the transect teams should check if all the necessary equipment including data sheets and stationery are taken and are in good working condition before leaving for the transect work. A maximum of three and a minimum of one transect needs to be walked each day. Walking more than three transects might lead to personal fatigue and affect the quality of the data collected. All readings must be taken to the second decimal level except for the compass reading.

The training program conducted in Ramnagar on 16th February 2012 was attended by CCF Garhawal, Mr. D.V.S Khati, CCF Kumaon, Mr. Param Jit Singh, Ranjan Mishra, Field Director Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR), Dr. R S. Bist, Conservator (Western Kumaon Circle), Mr. C.K. Kavidyal, DD, CTR Mr. Nishant Verma, DFO Terai West, Mr. Amith Verma, DFO Haldwani, Dr. K D Kandpal, Landscape co-coordinator, WWF-India, Uttarakhand and SDOs and Range Officers from Ramnagar FD and Corbett TR.

The programme in Saneh on 18th February 2012 was attended by Mr. Surender Kumar, DFO, Kalagarh, SDOs Range officers and field staff from Lansdowne and Kalagarh. The programme conducted in Chilla on 21st February 2012 was attended by CCF Garhawal, Mr. D.V.S Khati, Mr. Subudhi, Director, Rajaji National Park, IFS, DFO, Haridwar, Deputy Director, Wildlife warden, SDO Range Officers, Field Staff from Rajaji National Park Haridwar and Dehradun Forest Divisions. From ANCF, Mr. Surendra Varma, Mr. M. S. Nishanth and Mr. S.B. Datta were present. The class room lessons were conducted in English and same was translated in Hindi. In each location two teams were formed depending on the proximity of division, each team included resource person from ANCF who gave a field demonstration that involved organizing the team for proposed field work.

Training and practical sessions for researchers Briefing on study area, objectives and methodology for estimating elephant density was provided for the researchers (chosen exclusively from different research and conservation organisation across India) participating in this operation by Mr. Surendra Varma, with the support of Mr. M. S. Nishant at Wildlife Institute of India guest house conference room on 22nd February 2012 (Figures 5a & b). The researchers include personal from Wildlife Trust

a b

Figures 5a & b: Training programme for researchers; resource person & researchers participated in the programme (a), class room session describing the methods (b).

103 of India (WTI), New Delhi, Centre for Ecological Science (CES), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and WWF- India, Uttarakhand.

Field equipment including range maps, datasheets GPS and field compass were distributed and instructions on how to use the field equipment (Figure 6a) & fill the sheets were given. This was followed by a field exercise where researchers were shown how to draw straight line transects (Figure 6b) using compasses for bearings, ropes for trajectory and the system for counting dung was explained. Briefing on forming a team for walking transects and training related to the same was done in field. During this time, the researchers were allotted respective areas with the understanding that researchers do a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 transects a day. After completing the field work researchers were suggested to write a report with details of their experiences that included the logistics, number of transects covered, number of people in each team, mode of travel to reach transect location (see appendix 3 a write up on the personal experience of a researcher).

a b

Figures 6a & b: Training programme for researchers- field demonstration on usage of field equipment (a) collecting data in the field (b).

104

8. References

105

Agni, T., Pandit, A., Pandit, K., and Tiwari, A. (2000). Analysis of tree vegetation in the terai-bhabar tract of Kumaun central Himalaya. Indian Journal of forestry 23, 252- 261. Atkinson, E.T. (1882). Geology of the Himalayas. Cosmo Publications, New Delhi. Barnes RFW. (1996). Estimating forest elephant abundance by dung counts. In: Studying elephants, AWF Technical Handbook (K. Kangwana, ed.), pp. 33-48. African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi. Barnes, R.F.W., and Jenson, K.L. (1978). How to count elephants in forests. IUCN African and Rhino Specialist Group, Technical Bulletin 1, 1-6. Barnes, R.F.W., Asamoah-Boateng, B., Naada Majam, J., and Agyei- Ohemeng, J. (1997). Rainfall and the population dynamics of elephant dung piles in the forests of southern Ghana. African Journal of Ecology 3, 39–52. Barnes, R.F.W., Beardsley, K. Michelmore, F., Barnes, K.L., Alers, M.P.T., and Blom, A. (1997). Estimating forest elephant numbers with dung counts and a geographic information system. Journal of Wildlife Management 61, 1384-1393. Barnes, R.F.W., and Barnes, K.L. (1992). Estimating decay rates of elephant dung piles in forest. African Journal of Ecology 30, 316–321. Barnes, R.F.W., and Dunn, A. (2002). Estimating forest elephant density in Sapo National Park (Liberia) with a rainfall model. African Journal of Ecology 40, 159–163. Bist, S. S. (2002). An overview of elephant conservation in India. Indian Forester 128, 121–136. Breuer, T., and Hockemba, M, N. (2007). Forest elephant dung decay in Ndoki Forest, northern Congo, Pachyderm 43, 43-51. Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., and Laake, J.L. (1993). Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman & Hall, London. Burnham, K. P. Anderson, D. P., and J. L. Laake. (1980). Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monograph 72, 1-202. Chaturvedi, A.N., and Misra, C.M. (1985). Ecological survey of grasslands at Dudhwa National Park. Indian Forester 111, 579-582. Doube, B.M. (1991). Dung beetles of southern Africa. In: Dung beetle ecology (I. Hanski and Y. Cambefort, eds.), pp 133-155. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Hooge P.N., Eichenlaub W.M., and Solomon E.K. (1999). The animal movement program. Alaska Science Center-Biological Science Office, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK, USA (http://www.absc.usgs). Hooge, P.N., and Eichenlaub. B. (2000). Animal movement extension to Arcview. ver. 2.0. Alaska Science Center - Biological Science Office, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK, USA. Horgan, F.G. (2005). Effects of deforestation on diversity, biomass and function of dung beetles on the eastern slopes of the Peruvian Andes. Forest Ecology and Management 216, 117–133. Hedges, S., and Lawson, D. (2006). Dung survey standards for the MIKE Programme. CITES MIKE Programme, Nairobi. Johnsingh, A.J.T., Ramesh K., Qureshi Q., David A., Goyal S. P., Rawat G.S., Rajapandian K., and Prasad, S. (2004). Conservation status of tiger and associated species in the Terai Arc landscape, India. RR-04/110, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, pp vii+110. Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1994). An Action plan for the conservation of the Asian elephant in north-west India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, pp 1-21. Johnsingh, A.J.T., and Joshua, J. (1994). Conserving Rajaji and Corbett National Parks-the elephant as a flagship species. Oryx 28, 135-140.

106

Johnsingh, A.J.T., Prasad, S.N., and Goyal, S.P. (1990). Conservation status of Chilla- Motichur corridor for elephant movement in Rajaji-Corbett National Parks. Biological Conservation 51, 125-138. Karanth, K.U., and Sunquist, M. E. (1992): Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8, 21-35. Laing, S.E., Buckland, S.T., Burn, R.W., Lambie, D., and Amphlett A. (2003). Dung and nest surveys: estimating decay rates. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 1102–1111. Masunga, G.S., Andresen, O., Taylor, J.E., and Dhillion, S.S. (2006). Elephant dung decomposition and coprophilous fungi in two habitats of semi-arid Botswana. Mycological Research 110, 1214–1226. Merz, G. (1986). Counting elephants Loxodonta Africana cyclotis in tropical rainforests with particular reference to the Tai National Park, Ivory Coast. African Journal of Ecology 24, 61–68. MIKE, (2003). Report and Recommendations of the MIKE Dung count taskforce. CITES MIKE Programme, Nairobi. Nchanji, A.C., and Plumptre, A.J. (2001). Seasonality in elephant dung decay and implications for censusing and population monitoring in south-western Cameroon. African Journal of Ecology 39, 24–32. Prasad, A., and Sukumar, R. (2006). Gajah 2.0 Based on Monte Carlo simulation, Centre for Ecological Sciences and Asian Nature Conservation Foundation, Indian Institute of Science, India (http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/gajaha). Santosh, J.A., and Sukumar, R. (1995). Some solutions to problems in estimation of elephant densities. In: A week with elephants. (J. C. Daniel and H.S. Datye, eds.), pp. 394-404. Bombay Natural Society, Bombay and Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Singh, V.B. (1969). The elephant (Elephas maximus Linn.) in Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 66, 239-250. Singh, V.B. (1978). The elephant in UP (India) – a resurvey of its status after 10 years. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 75, 71-82. Sunderraj, S.F.W., Mishra, B.K., and Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1995). Elephant use of Rajaji- Corbett Forest Corridor, North West India. In: A week with elephants. (J. C. Daniel and H.S. Datye, eds.), pp. 256-260. Bombay Natural Society, Bombay and Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Singh, V.B. (1986). The Elephant in U.P., India-The ongoing status in two decades. Cheetal 28, 39-45. Singh, K.N. (1995). Asiatic elephants in UP (India) status and strategy for Conservation. In: A week with elephants. (J. C. Daniel and H.S. Datye, eds.), pp. 32-48. Bombay Natural Society, Bombay and Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Sukumar, R. (1999). Estimating elephant densities in forests through direct and indirect methods. In: Conservation of the Asian elephant in Indochina, (F.V. Osborn and M.D. Vinton, eds.), pp.87-90. Fauna & Flora International, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tchamba, M. N. (1992). Defaecation by the African forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) in the Santchou Reserve, Cameroon. Mammalia 56, 155-158. Thomas, L., Buckland, S. T., Rexstad, E. A., Laake, J. L., Strindberg, S., Hedley, S. L., Bishop, J. R. B. Marques, T. A., and Burnham, K. P. (2010). Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 5–14. Varman, K.S., and Sukumar, R. (1995). The line transect method for estimating density of large mammals in a tropical deciduous forest: An evaluation of models and field experiments Journal of Biological Sciences, 20, 273-287.

107

Varman, K.S., Ramakrishnan, U., and Sukumar, R. (1995). Direct method of counting elephants; A comparison of results from Mudumalai Sanctuary. In: A week with elephants (J. C. Daniel and H.S. Datye, eds.), pp. 331-339. Bombay Natural Society, Bombay and Oxford University Press, New Delhi Varma, S, Htut, U. Ye., and Uga, U. (2008). Population Evaluation of Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) in commercially exploited habitats of Myanmar. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 56, 55-68. Vernes, K., Pope, L.C., Hill. C.J., and Barlocher, F. (2005). Seasonality, dung specificity and competition in dung beetle assemblages in the Australian wet tropics, north- eastern Australia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21, 1–8. Watve, M.G. (1992). Ecology of host-parasite interactions in wild mammalian host community in Mudumalai, southern India. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. White, L.J.T. (1995). Factors affecting the duration of elephant dung piles in rain forest in the Lope, Reserve. Gabon. African Journal of Ecology, 33, 142-150. Williams, A.C. (2007). Population age-sex ratios of elephants in Rajaji-Corbett National Parks, Uttaranchal. Final report on elephant age sex ratios in Rajaji NP-2002-2007. Operation Eye of Tiger, 300 ARAGHAR Model Colony, Dehradun 248001- Uttaranchal. Pp. 23. Wing, L. D., and I. O. Buss. (1970). Elephants and forests. Wildlife Monograph. 19, 1-92.

108

Appendixes

109

Appendix 1: Models that are used for selection of robust estimator for Rajaji National Park

GOF Ci S. ESW/ D Chi- CI width*D No Name of the model AIC EDR D D LCL UCL D CV p width CV 1 Half normal (bins 30) 3597.2 5.82 1436 1087 1898 0.139 0.21 811 112.99 2 Half normal (bins 25) 3390.2 5.88 1420 1075 1878 0.140 0.26 803 112.19 3 Half normal (bins 20) 3121.9 5.56 1503 1133 1996 0.142 0.43 863 122.46 4 Half normal (bins 15) 2791.1 5.85 1428 1080 1888 0.140 0.10 808 112.98 5 Half normal (bins 10) 2313.8 5.59 1494 1123 1989 0.143 0.61 866 124.08 6 Half normal (bins 8) 2056.5 5.80 1441 1088 1909 0.141 0.62 820 115.37 7 Half normal (bins 7) 1911.7 6.85 1219 930 1599 0.135 0.15 669 90.36 8 Half normal (bins 6) 1732.8 5.75 1453 1096 1927 0.141 0.46 831 117.37 9 Half normal (bins 5) 1517.4 6.81 1227 935 1610 0.135 0.13 675 91.37 10 Half normal (bins 4) 1276.9 6.82 1226 934 1610 0.136 0.87 677 91.99 11 Half normal (bins 3) 981.4 7.56 1105 837 1460 0.139 623 86.8 12 Uniform (bins 30) 3598.4 5.77 1447 1096 1912 0.139 0.21 816 113.64 13 Uniform (bins 25) 3391.6 5.85 1429 1081 1889 0.140 0.25 808 112.79 14 Uniform (bins 20) 3123.1 5.77 1449 1096 1914 0.139 0.34 818 113.94 15 Uniform (bins 15) 2792.9 5.84 1432 1083 1893 0.140 0.08 811 113.4 16 Uniform (bins 10) 2314.9 5.82 1436 1085 1901 0.140 0.44 816 114.63 17 Uniform (bins 8) 2057.4 5.71 1463 1105 1938 0.141 0.71 833 117.18 18 Uniform (bins 7) 0 0 19 Uniform (bins 6) 1734.3 5.68 1472 1109 1954 0.142 846 120.19 20 Uniform (bins 5) 1517.7 6.38 1311 989 1738 0.141 749 105.87 21 Uniform (bins 4) 1278.9 6.82 1226 931 1614 0.138 684 94.13 22 Uniform (bins 3) 981.4 7.88 1060 809 1389 0.135 580 78.15 23 Hazard rate (bins 30) 3592.4 5.04 1659 1204 2285 0.162 0.38 1080 175.19 24 Hazard rate (bins 25) 3387.6 5.28 1583 1152 2176 0.161 0.32 1024 165.02 25 Hazard rate (bins 20) 3117.9 5.19 1612 1172 2216 0.161 0.59 1044 168.52 26 Hazard rate (bins 15) 2784 4.97 1683 1208 2343 0.168 0.46 1135 190.7 27 Hazard rate (bins 10) 2312.3 5.63 1484 1054 2089 0.174 0.52 1034 179.81 28 Hazard rate (bins 8) 2057.5 5.68 1470 1020 2120 0.187 0.33 1100 205.47 29 Hazard rate (bins 7) 1907.9 5.83 1434 978 2103 0.196 0.77 1125 220.4 30 Hazard rate (bins 6) 1736.1 5.73 1459 938 2271 0.227 0.05 1333 303.12 31 Hazard rate (bins 5) 1516.2 6.13 1363 889 2090 0.220 0.31 1201 263.89 32 Hazard rate (bins 4) 1277.2 7.30 1144 855 1532 0.147 0.59 677 99.17 33 Hazard rate (bins 3) 981.5 8.59 973 734 1290 0.141 556 78.44 34 Neg exp (bins 30) 3591 4.77 1752 1334 2302 0.136 0.37 968 131.83 35 Neg exp (bins 25) 3386 4.81 1737 1322 2282 0.136 0.35 960 130.82 36 Neg exp (bins 20) 3116.3 4.76 1756 1337 2307 0.136 0.62 970 132.15 37 Neg exp (bins 15) 2783.2 4.78 1749 1331 2298 0.136 0.43 967 131.74 38 Neg exp (bins 10) 2309 4.75 1761 1340 2314 0.136 0.79 974 132.86 39 Neg exp (bins 8) 2054.5 4.76 1755 1336 2306 0.136 0.59 971 132.33 40 Neg exp (bins 7) 1904.3 5.50 1518 1155 1996 0.137 0.91 841 114.89 41 Neg exp (bins 6) 1732.8 4.81 1736 1320 2282 0.137 0.21 962 131.33 42 Neg exp (bins 5) 1512.2 5.44 1535 1167 2019 0.137 0.81 852 116.54 43 Neg exp (bins 4) 1275 5.55 1505 1143 1981 0.137 0.93 837 114.91 44 Neg exp (bins 3) 980.9 5.75 1454 1103 1916 0.138 0.22 814 112.44

Each row in above table specifies a model. For example, first row of the table describes the details of the model half normal distribution when the data is divided into 30 bins. Second column specifies Akeike Information Criterion (AIC) value corresponding to the best fit models among the specified detection function and series expansion criterion (E.g. AIC

110 value corresponding to model half normal bins 30 specifies the AIC value of best model among the combination of Half Normal and three series expansions when the number of bins (intervals) the data is divided into is 30). Effective Stripe Width (ESW) is calculated such that the number of animals detected outside the ESW exactly equals the number of animals missed inside the ESW. Mean dung density estimates are calculated per square km (D), lower limit of 95% confidence interval (LCL), upper limit of 95% confidence interval (UCL), coefficient of variation of average dung density estimates (per square km)( D CV), P value of Chi Square Goodness of Fit test, width of the 95% confidence interval and multiplication of width of the 95% confidence interval and coefficient of variation of average dung density estimates (per square km)( D CV).

111

Appendix 2:

GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING POPULATION OF ASIAN ELEPHANTS IN UTTARAKHAND USING AN INDIRECT METHOD

(Instruction manual for researchers)

112

Guidelines to Researchers – Line Transect (24th February to 5th March 2012)

Before leaving for the transect

1. Make sure to collect data sheets, equipment, maps and contact numbers of the division you are heading. 2. Make sure that the division head (DFO or SO) is informed of your arrival.

A. On reaching your assigned division 1. Report to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) or Section Officer (SO). 2. Explain in detail your plan of work for the next 10 days with the aid of maps. 3. Show the proposed transects on the map and the number of grids and beats in which transects would be laid. 4. Collect the phone numbers of the range forest officers and other officials who you might have to contact in order to make sure your plan works. 5. Make sure you have spoken to the DFO and SO clearly regarding the food and accommodation facilities for the 10 days and that the message is conveyed to the concerned authorities. 6. Hiring a jeep if needed should be done before entering the forest.

B. On reaching the place of accommodation (preferably close to the grids in which transects would be walked) 7. Speak to the forest ranger/forester or guard and form a tentative 4 member team (3 forest staff + 1 researcher) for the next few days in advance. 8. Researchers need to sit with rangers/forester or guard and mark the grids or beats with High, medium and low elephant numbers or occurrence. 9. Collect the phone numbers of all the team members. 10. Collect the range map, beat map enquire regarding the frequency of elephant visitation, group sizes.

C. Walking the transect line 11. Make sure that each one of you has a compass, measuring tape, 50 m nylon tape, GPS, data sheets, grid maps and lunch box(!) before leaving for the transect. 12. A one km straight line transect should be laid in those grids in which elephants are known to occur. 13. If 1 km straight line cannot be walked the same transect can be done in short segments which are straight. It is important to ensure that an effort of 1 km walk is invested in each grid. 14. A maximum of 3 and a minimum of 1 transect should be walked per day. 15. Make sure you have a tentative plan of sweeping the girds beforehand.

D. At the end of the day 16. Every day update the range officers of the progress in work, once every 3 days make sure to give an update to the DFO and SO regarding the same.

113

17. Please update in-charge person on the encounter rate of dung piles and any other issues during transect on a daily basis if possible as this will help to decide on the number of transects required and the spread of the same. 18. Collect data sheet, check and enter the data in the computer if you are carrying any.

E. At the end of the survey 19. Please arrange all the data sheets according to dates and photocopy the same. Handover the photocopied sheets to the DFO or SO and keep the originals. Inform the authorities that you are leaving the division and update them regarding the status of work.

Other general guidelines

1. Be cordial to the staff and officers. 2. Maintain field diary with and official summary of the day‟s work, this will be used in writing reports. 3. In case transects are completed and you wish to explore the surrounding forest area please take permission from the concerned authorities above the rank of a range forest officer. 4. Select the grids with more than 25% protected area in addition to elephant presence.

114

LINE TRANSECT DUNG COUNT DATA SHEET FOR ELEPHANT POPULATION ESTIMATION

Date: Vegetation type: Forest Division: Transect length (km): Forest Range: Location (Beat/Com.): Starting Point GPS reading: End point GPS reading:

Perpendicular distance of Remarks S. No. dung pile from transect (in

m up to 1 decimal) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Tally mark at every 50 m of rope lengths

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

115

DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF A LINE TRANSECT DUNG COUNT METHOD

Dung Pile No. 2

START END 0.5m

5.4m 5.9m

Dung Pile No. 1 Dung Pile No. 3 Dung Pile No. 4 6.29m m

116 Appendix 3:

Experience of participating in population estimation of Asian Elephant in Uttarakhand

Arjun Anavangote Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi

117

Briefing and practical sessions on February 22, 2012, at WII, Dehradun Mr. Surendra Varma, assisted by Mr. M.S. Nishant briefed us on the study area, objectives and methodology of the study. Range maps, datasheets and equipment were distributed and instructions on how to fill the sheets were given to us. Next there was a field exercise where we were shown how to draw straight line transects using compasses for bearings, ropes for trajectory and system for counting dung.

Briefing on how to make and train our support teams was done in field. During this time, the researchers were allotted respective areas. I was given Lansdowne forest division with a total of 16 transects and grids. The understanding was that we were to do a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 transects a day.

Meeting with DFO, Lansdowne Forest Division, Shri Narendra Singh Choudhary On 23rd Feb, travel to Kotdwar and along with other researchers, met the DFO Lansdowne Forest Division, Shri. Narendra Singh Choudhary at around 10.30 am. The actual process of estimating dung density using line transect indirect count and the plan for each range was explained to the DFO and the rationale behind selecting the grids, based on high/ medium/ low density elephant occupancy was explained to him.

At around 3.30 pm, I was called in to meet the RFOs of Lansdowne. I had used the time interval in studying my division grid map and figuring out which ranges fell in each grid so I would be able to have meaningful discussions with the RFOs.

Meeting with RFOS, Lansdowne Forest Division At 3.30 pm, DFO office, three out of four rangers were present. They were Shri. J. P. Kukreti, Kotdwar range, Shri. S. L. Thalpliyal, Dugadda range and Shri. Dalip Singh Dogra, Kotdi range. Shri R. P. Pant, Ranger Laldang was not able to attend the meeting. During this meeting, RFOs identified the respective beats and with their assistance and discussion on date wise timetable for working in the different ranges was conducted.

During this meeting researcher‟s requirements for work in the form of logistical support, boarding and lodging were discussed, all of which was done in the presence of DFO and was agreed upon.

Based on this the following schedule was agreed upon.

S. No Range Dates Transects 1 Kotdwar range 24, 25th Feb 4 2 Dugada range 26, 27th Feb 3 3 Kotdi range 28, 29th Feb, 1,2nd Mar 5 4 Laldaang range 3,4,5th March 4

Base camps allowed for each range:

S. No Range Accommodation 1 Kotdwar Paniyali guest house, Ranger‟s residence 2 Dugadda Nauri guest house, Gujjar dera 3 Kotdi Kholuchaur, Chowkham guest house, Hotel in Kotdwar, FG‟s room

Food was provided at the guest houses and the researcher was received and treated with utmost hospitality and courtesy at every range.

118

Average distance covered from base to walk transects

S. No Range Average distance of Mode of travel No. of people in team base from transect 1 Kotdwar 5 km Motorcycle 3 + Researcher 2 Dugadda 4 km Foot, truck 4 + Researcher 3 Kotdi 4 km Foot 4-8 + Researcher It was found that 4 is an optimum size, two to hold the rope, two to measure and one researcher. However, extra people were required to clear the undergrowth.

Distance walked to lay 1 km transect

S. No Range Average distance 1 Kotdwar 250 m 2 Dugadda 2.5 – 3 km 3 Kotdi 8 – 10 km

The following schedule was adopted to cover the transects

S. No Range Dates Transects 1 Kotdwar range 24, 25, 26th Feb 4 2 Dugada range 27, 28, 29th Feb 3 3 Kotdi range 1,2,3,4th 5 4 Laldaang range Not done 4

In Lansdowne researcher was able to do a total of 12 transect in 10 days and on the 5th March 2012 he accompanied Mr. Surendra Varma, to check the status of dung piles marked by the field staff. Two transects that were to be walked in Laldaang Range was covered by another researcher.

Summary for Lansdowne Forest division S. no Details 1 No of transects allotted 16 2 No of transects completed 12 3 No of grids covered 12 4 Total effort (km) 12 5 Total dung piles counted 756 6 Mean dung encounter rate/km 63

Critique of methodology 1. Initial briefing should be more detailed with longer time spent on transect drawing across different micro habitats. 2. Instructions should be clear as to minimum acceptable length for a segment eg 250 m, 500 m etc. 3. Site specific factors should be considered in undulating country with steep hills and valleys where transects may necessarily have to be drawn along streams and paths. Also in areas with heavy lantana and other undergrowth, strategies need to be planned. 4. Team size should be not less than 4 excluding the researcher, two to hold the rope, two to measure distances and the researcher who walks along the transect. 119

5. Researcher should carry uniform equipment compasses, GPS of similar make, rechargeable battery with battery charger. 6. DFO and Rangers should be briefed on the importance of managing time and to make vehicles available so as to avoid waste of time.

Names of team members from Lansdowne division

No Range Name Position 1 Kotdwar J. P. Kukreti Range Forest Officer 2 Jagmohan Singh Forester 3 Deepak Rawat “ 4 M. S. Aswal “ 5 Dhirender Singh Forest Guard 6 Dhiresh Prasad Mamgain “ 7 Surya Prakash “ 8 Mahipal Singh “ 9 Bhupender Singh Bisht “ 10 Chandan Singh Negi “ 11 Ravinder Singh Watcher 12 Bachan Singh “ 13 Jabbar “ 14 Sonu “ 15 Dugadda S. L. Thapliyal Range Forest Officer 16 Mendola Forester 17 Bisht Forest Guard 18 Rakesh Temporary Watcher 19 Kotdi Dalip Singh Dogra Range Forest Officer 20 Vijeyender Divedi Forester 21 Virender Singh Shah “ 22 Lyall “ 23 Mohan Singh Negi Forest Guard 24 Rajesh Singh Negi “ 25 Sunil Singh Rawat “ 26 Dalbir Singh Chauhan “ 27 Satpal Singh “ 28 Dharmdev Dubey “ 29 Viernder Singh Kandari “ 30 Ashok Kumar “ 31 Thapliyal “ 32 Sangeet “ 33 Jayprakash Bungalow Chowkidar 34 Sohan Singh Bungalow Chowkidar 35 Lal Singh Bungalow Chowkidar

120

Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (ANCF) is a non-profit public charitable trust set up to meet the need for an informed decision-making framework to stem the loss of biological diversity in India and other countries of tropical Asia. The Foundation undertakes activities independently as well as in coordination with governmental agencies, research institutions, conservation NGOs and individuals, on matters relating to the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity. Forest Department in Uttarakhand is responsible for managing some of the richest forests and biodiversity in India. These are spread over a landscape that includes plains country to high altitude Himalayas. The Forest Department of Uttarakhand is one of the oldest in India with a history of forestry reaching back about 150 years into the middle of the nineteenth century. This historical depth and experience is an enabling factor in competently managing the climatic, geographical and genetic variety of forests and wildlife.

The Centre for Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science offers opportunities for research in a variety of areas in ecology. These include animal behaviour, evolutionary biology and sociobiology, community and habitat ecology, molecular genetics and conservation biology, large mammal and forest ecology, and climate change. Research is being carried out on a number of taxa, ranging from ants to elephants, and including wasps, crickets, spiders, herpetofauna, birds and mammals. The projects range from theoretical to laboratory to field-based research with the different approaches being used in a complementary manner.

Photo credits: Section Study area: Figures 1g and h & Figures 2g: M.S. Nishant. Figures 1c, f & Figure 3b: Debmalya Roy, Figure 2e: Dr. Mudit Gupta WWF, Figure 3a: Krishna Hanse Section Methods: Figures 4a, b, d, i, k, l & Figure 5a: M.S. Nishant. Figure 1j: Krishna Hanse Section Elephant densities and numbers for Uttarakhand: Figure 4a: Krishna Hanse, B: Debmalya Roy, Figures 9b, c & d: M. S. Nishant, Figure 9e: Ben Teron, g: K. D. Kandpal, h & i: Debmalya Roy, Section Training Programme and Captivity Building: Figure 1a: M. S. Nishant, Figure 2c: WWF- Uttarakhand, Figure 4a: S.B. Datta, Back cover: Clock-wise (left to right) a: M. S. Nishant, c, d & h: Debmalya Roy, g: K. D. Kandpal, All other photographs: Surendra Varma

121

This

This document outlines an attempt to estimate elephant numbers and their distribution in Uttarakhand, north-west India. Elephant numbers were estimated by indirect (dung) count method and the distribution of the species between the Yamuna & Sarada Rivers in the State, was determined based on existing ground knowledge of the field staff and through the Kernel Density Estimator method (using encounter rate of dung obtained from line transects surveyed). The results have provided a scope for generating a spatial map of status & distribution of the species in this landscape.

122