sign in sign up
<<
Home , Sloth bear

Sloth habitat use in disturbed and unprotected areas of MadhyaPradesh,

Naim Akhtar1'3, Harendra Singh Bargali2'4, and N.P.S. Chauhan1'5

WildlifeInstitute of India,P.O. Box 18, Chandrabani,Dehradun 248001, India 2WWF-lndia,Lodhi Estate, New Delhi-110003,India

Abstract: In the North BilaspurForest Division in ,India, the sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) population is ecologically isolated, and some have developed aggressive behavior. Available bearhabitat is highly fragmentedand degradedand is interspersedwith humanhabitation. In this study we assessed habitatuse patternsof sloth bears with the goal of establishingmanagement guidelines to reduce human-bearconflicts. Goodness-of-fitcomparisons showed that expected use of each habitat category differed from habitat availability. Bear sign was most frequent in sal forest followed by land near water, sal mixed forest, and mixed forest. However, bear use of terrain categories was not different from expected use. A large number of bear dens were near water and humansettlements. Bears regularlyused more than 50% of observedden sites. Because of nearnessto human settlement and degraded habitat, bears largely depended on villages for food, resulting in frequent human-bear encounters, some of which led to maulings and fatalities. One management priorityis to protecthighly preferredhabitats of sloth bears. Bear populationcontrol and translocation of bears from isolated habitatpatches to more suitable areas may be carriedout simultaneouslywith education and awarenessprograms to conserve this and to mitigate human-bearconflicts on a long-termbasis.

Key words: bear sign, denning habitat,fruit trees, habitatuse, human-bearencounters, Melursus ursinus, sloth bear

Ursus15(2):203-211 (2004)

The quality of sloth bear habitat is determined by Forest Division recordsshowed 395 incidents of human availability and seasonal variationin food, shelter, and fatalitiesor injuriesfrom bear attacksbetween 1991 and cover. The of vegetation availability fruitingtrees, shrub 2000. Loss and degradationof habitathave been major densities, water, and termitesand directly influence factors behind human-bear conflicts in the North habitat use. Despite myrmecophagoushabits (Davidar Bilaspur Forest Division (Bargali 2002). Swenson et al. sloth 1983, 1999), bears are omnivorous Little informationis available on denning, movement and consume large amounts of vegetable matter, patterns,and habitatuse of sloth bears in disturbedand fruits and Seidensticker particularly (Laurie 1977; Gopal fragmented forest areas. Such information may be 1991; Gokula 1991, Gokula and Vardharajan1995). helpful to forest managersto gain a betterunderstanding Studies of movement of sloth bears patterns showed that of resourceson which sloth bearsdepend. Our study was size home-range mainly dependedon food supply (Joshi designed to assess habitatuse patternsof sloth bears in et al. 1995, Desai et al. 1997). North Bilaspur Forest Division, where bear habitat is and Depletion fragmentationof natural forest cover highly disturbedand fragmented. because of human development and agriculturalpracti- ces have greatly impactedmovements and habitatuse of area sloth bears throughouttheir range (Sankarand Murthy Study This study was conducted 1998-2000 in the 1995, Rajpurohitand Krausman2000). North Bilaspur during Pendraand Marwahiranges of the North BilaspurForest Division, Madhya Pradesh, covering an area of 1,395 km2 (Fig. 1). The study area was between 22?40' and [email protected] 23?06' N latitude and 81?44' and 82013' E longitude. [email protected] Based on satellite images of the North Bilaspur Forest [email protected] Division, human settlement and agricultural land

203 204 SLOTH BEAR HABITATUSE * Akhtar et al.

Manendragarh

Venkngar_._ Manendragarh

7F p-- ( .' ^--^-' '~?..c,o /-3 __O ~,'% I| IForest |Forest compartment

Fig. 1. Sloth bear study area in the North Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh, India, 1998-2000. occupied approximately60% of the study area (Akhtar northern tropical secondary moist mixed deciduous 2002). About 380 km2 of the study area was forested forest. In addition to sloth bears, other large (Fig. 2). The human population exceeded 200,000, and in this area include common (Pantherapardus), the livestock population was over 150,000. Forest nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), spotted deer (Axis patches ranged from 11 to 97 ha. Most forest patches axis), striped ( hyaena), were interspersed among or surrounded by human ( aureus), Indian ( bengalensis), four- settlementand agriculturallands. homed antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis), wild boar The study areais in one of the oldest mountainchains (Sus scrofa), common langur (Semnopithecusentellus), of India. The area is within the Eastern Deccan rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), toddy or palm Biogeographical Zone (Rodgers and Panwar 1988). (Paradoxurushermaphroditus), and Indian porcu- Agricultural soils are mostly clay and loam. The pine (Hystrix indica). topography of the Vindhya or Maikal range is un- dulating and interspersedwith chains of hillocks and rocks ranging in elevation from 450-1,050 m. Some Methods hillocks are isolated and surroundedby villages. One Surveys were conducted within the Pendra and major river, the Son, flows throughthe area, and nullas Marwahi ranges of North Bilaspur Forest Division to (seasonal streams) originate from hillocks. Drinking determinehabitat use (i.e., sloth bear sign) and habitat watercomes from ponds and check dams throughoutthe availability. Linear transects were placed within the study area. Mean day temperaturesvary little during study area, covering all areas we deemed representative December to February(24.5? C and 27.1? C). However, of bear use, such as forests, denning habitats, and crop temperaturesduring winter nights average 10.7? C but fields. Two transects were placed specifically along drop as low as 2? C. Average rainfall in the region is nullas and rivers because bears are known to use these 1,376 mm, of which 85% occur during the monsoon. areas. Data collected within the same habitattype were Man-made ground fire is common during summer pooled. Seventy-eightlinear transects of 1 km each were months. placed in 8 habitat types: mixed forest, sal forest, sal Championand Seth (1968) classified the forest types mixed forest, crop field, scrubland, open land, land near of the area as dry deciduous peninsular sal forest, water, and plantation.Transect surveys were conducted northern tropical dry mixed deciduous forest, and 4 times at intervalsof three months duringthe first year.

Ursus 15(2):203-211 (2004) SLOTH BEAR HABITATUSE * Akhtar et al. 205

Fig. 2. Forest cover in the North Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh, India, 1998-2000.

Bear sign was recordedwithin 5 m of either side of each PREFER (Gupta and Prasad 1992). We tested the transect. Along each transect, we also established hypothesis that bears used the 8 habitat types in sample plots every 250 m (5 plots per transect). Each proportion to occurrence within the study area. The circularplot had a 10-m radius.We recordedpresence or frequency of bear sign in each habitattype was used to absence of bear sign, including diggings, scats, and claw determinebear habitat use. Availability of each habitat marks. We also recorded information on habitat type in the study area was based on sampling of 390 variables including terrain, vegetation type, tree and plots. shrubsspecies (Cottamand Curtis 1956), numberof cut We determined associations among the habitat and lopped (cutting of branchesfor fuel or fodder) trees, variables by constructing a dissimilarities table (a tree height, canopy cover, presence of cattle dung, and symmetric matrix) and plotting the results in 2 mounds. At the same plot, we also recorded dimensions with SPSS (Version 8.0; Norussis 1994). distance to nearest water source, distance to nearest Variablesassociated with vegetation cover (canopy, tree denning habitat, distance to nearest human habitation, species richness, fruiting tree species richness, tree and distance to nearest road. Terrainwas divided into 4 height, shrub cover, and herb cover), human influence broad categories: flat, undulating, gentle, and steeply (felled and lopped trees, disturbance from road, and sloped. Tree canopy cover and tree height were presence of cattle dung), availability of food (termite measured with a densiometer and a range measuring mounds), village distance, and distancesto nearestwater system, respectively. The density of fruiting trees near sources and denning habitat were used in the scaling. villages was estimatedusing a plotless samplingmethod We used the Kruskal-Wallistest (Zar 1984) for differ- (nearest 10-tree method; Kent and Coker 1992). Scats ences among habitatvariables in plots with and without found at bear dens and sampling plots along transects bear sign. For this analysis, we used information on were collected. Scats were washed and food items were canopy, terrain, forest type, tree richness, fruiting tree identified, mostly by ocular and microscopic examina- richness, felled and lopped trees, tree height, distance to tion. Almost all items in the sloth bear scats, including nearest habitation, disturbancefrom road, cattle dung, ants and , could be identified in the field or distance to nearest water sources, distance to nearest laboratory. Types of fruits eaten by bears were de- denning habitat, shrub cover, and herb cover. terminedfrom analysis of 1,086 scats. Finally, we collected information on bear den We compared habitat use of sloth bears with habitat locations and other bear observations, including hu- availability(Neu et al. 1974) using the softwareprogram man-bear encounters. Because most of the area was

Ursus 15(2):203-211 (2004) 206 SLOTHBEAR HABITAT USE * Akhtar et al.

Table 1. Sloth bear habitat use and habitat availability in the North Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh, India, 1998-2000. Proportional Plots with Use Expecteduse Dug-out Habitattype availability Plots bearsign (%) (%) mounds/ha Scats/ha Mixedforest 0.292 114 55 48.2 52.6 17.1 3.6 Sal forest 0.138 54 38 70.4 24.9 36.0 3.2 Sal mixedforest 0.141 55 28 50.9 25.4 17.4 0.6 Cropfield 0.064 25 7 28.0 11.5 7.2 1.7 Scrub land 0.226 88 28 31.8 40.6 9.9 1.3 Open land 0.064 25 7 28.0 11.5 7.6 3.4 Landnear water 0.038 15 9 60.0 6.9 18.4 2.1 Plantation 0.036 14 8 57.1 6.5 9.9 0 Total 390 180

interspersedwith human settlement, we first collected Termitesare a common, preferredfood item of sloth informationregarding bear dens and bear observations bears. We observed two types of termite nests: un- from villagers. We subsequentlyvisited the entire study derground nests, which were difficult to detect, and area with local field assistants and villagers to confirm prominent mounds from 20 to 500 cm in height. the existence of dens based on the presence or absence Although we found the greatest density of termite of scats. Bears are basically nocturnal here, and use mounds near water and on plantation areas, these hollow cavities between boulders of a hillock to spend habitatscovered a small area (Fig. 3). Average density daytimes; we commonly refer to these as "dens". One of termite mounds across all habitat types was 16.4 small hillock may hold a single den site with multiple mounds/ha.Along nullas and river banks, we frequently openings and compartments,whereas a large hillock found termite mounds that had been dug out by bears. might have more than one den site. We monitored all Although undergroundtermite nests were numerous these potentialbear denning sites during500 visits over along water bodies, the colonies were relatively small 3 years. Villagers residing adjacent to den sites also and bears seemed to prefer feeding on termites in provided information on bear activity at those sites. mounds. Once dug out by bears, termites were not Many of the den sites were specifically observed to eliminated completely; termitesrecovered very quickly record denning activity of bears. and built their nests again. The numberof diggings was greatestin sal forest (Table 1). Two-dimensional scaling of the habitat variables Results showed that bear sign was most abundantin areas at distances from and den where Habitat use larger villages sites, cover and availabilityof food was relatively Data collected from the 390 sample plots indicated vegetation Habitatsthat were most used bears that most of the available habitat was mixed forest high. frequently by received relatively high human disturbance (e.g., cut (29.2%) and scrub land (22.6%), whereas plantations trees, trees, cattle grazing; Fig. 4). Except for the least available habitat type (Table 1). lopped represented herb and distance from water, all other Goodness-of-fittest showed that bear use of each habitat terrain, cover, habitatvariables (tree canopy, forest type, tree richness, category differed from the occurrence of habitat fruiting tree richness, felled trees, lopped trees, tree categories within the study area (2 = 15.71, 7 df, P = height, cattle grazing, shrub cover, distance from 0.050). Occurrenceof bear sign was high in sal forest, habitation,road and denning habitat) differed between followed by land near water bodies, plantation,mixed areas where bear was present versus areas without and mixed forest; fields received the sign forest, agricultural bear least use. sign. Chi-squaretests indicatedthat bear use of each terrain category(flat, undulating,gentle and steep slope) did not Food availability and food habits differ from its proportionaloccurrence (2 = 1.27, 3 df, Among 390 plots, 147 (37.7%) lacked fruiting P = 0.500). However, den sites primarilyoccurred on species. For all plots combined, the average density of gentle to steep slopes of hillocks, although a few fruittrees was estimatedat 38/ha, with greatestdensities of the temporarydens were found along rivers duringsummer. in sal mixed forest. Fruit trees comprised 19%

Ursus 15(2):203-211 (2004) SLOTH BEAR HABITATUSE * Akhtar et al. 207

correspondedto the size of hillock. Most 40 den sites were located in large (150-300 34.0 35 m long and 50-80 m wide) hillocks. 30 27.3 Large boulders of hillocks also sheltered other . o 25 ,, jackals, 21.4 and sloth bearsall used a den site nearthe 20 c village of Tauli, with no apparentcom- 0 15 9.8 petition. 10 Water for bears was plentiful, and approximately77% of the den sites had water within 500 m (Table 5). However,

cn at we also observed holes in o 0 many areas, xCo E - c? ac the river sand dug by bears for drinking i^ l f ||?| water. x O o ? - ?~~~~~~~~~- I:~ Co 0 -J

Human-bear encounters Fig. 3. Density of termite mounds by habitat type in the North Human-bear encounters that resulted Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh, India, 1998-2000. in human injuries or fatalities were documented from 1991 to 2000 (n = overall tree density (202/ha) in the study area (Table 2). 395) Of 178 122 human-bear Average fruiting tree density near villages was approx- villages, reported iincidents. Iricidences of occurred most fre- imately 5/ha. mauling .7%), but human fatalities were not un- The average density of fruiting shrubs was estimated quent (93 3%). Such incidents were less common in at 727/ha across all habitat types (Table 3). Maximum common (6. (27.3 %, n = 108) than the Marwahi density of fruiting shrubswas found in sal mixed forest te enra rrange o = Most of the incidents occurred (1,279/ha). Sal mixed forest, sal forest, and mixed forest range 72.7% (n 287). llectednon-timber forest (31.0%), with high densities of both fruitingtrees and shrubsalso eole o products the forest (28.1%), cattle had the highest densities of bear sign (diggings and follod travelingthrough fuel wood and scats). grazing (24..3%), collecting (11.9%), In A total of 30 differentfood items were found in scats defecatondefecation near backyard (4.8%). both ranges, )f bear encounters were for men (n = 1,086). Fruits of gular (Ficus racemosa), pakri (F. incidences c greatest 279), followed women (18.7%, n = 74), virens), bargad(F. benghalensis), peepal (F. religiosa), (70.6% n by n (4.3%, n = 17). Most bear encounters ber (Ziziphusmauritiana), bel (),jamun an chldrer tween 0600-0800 hours (20.3%), followed (Syzygium cumini), and mahua (Madhuca indica), in occurredbe between 0400-0600 hours 1000- addition to termites (Odontotermes obesus) and ants by ncidents (18.0%), (17.5%), 0800-1000 hours (17.2%), 1400- were major food items for sloth bears. Of all fruiting 1200 hours (6.8%), 1800-2000 hours (6.6%), and shrub species, only 2, makoiya (Ziziphusoenoplia) and 1600 h hours (5.3%). Most incidents occurred in jangli ber (Z. nummularia),were importantin the bear 160 2%),followed fields (26.3%), and diet. Both occurredexclusively in forests; makoiya was oress by crop 5%). mainly found in mixed forest and scrub land, whereas villages (20 jangli ber was found in plantations, sal mixed forest, land near water, and mixed forest. Seventeen food items of bears were found in both forests and villages; only 7 DiSCUSSi on and 6 food items were confined to forests and villages, In the Peridra and Marwahiranges of North Bilaspur respectively. Forest Diviision, forests are highly disturbed and fragmentedby human habitationand agriculturalland. Den sites There is c

Ursus 15(2):203-211 (2004) 208 SLOTH BEAR HABITAT USE * Akhtar et al.

Euclidean distance model forest, because of high fruiting trees .4 and availability of termites mounds. Den Comparedwith the dry deciduous sal .2- and mixed forests of the North Bilas- i- pur Forest Division, sloth bear habitat -o 0.0 was different in the MudumalaiWild- 0. Vegetation & life Sanctuary,India, where bears most .2 - biotic pressure frequently used dry deciduous tall grass forest, followed by dry decidu- 0 -.4- Water ous short grass, thornforest, and moist -6- deciduous forest (Desai et al. 1997). Village Nevertheless,bears found fruitingtrees -.8 and termite mounds in both areas. -6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 The high density of fruiting tree in sal mixed sal Dimension 1 (Utilized plots) species forest, forest, and mixed forest may attractbears to these Trunks of Fig. 4. Two-dimensional scaling of habitat variables in plots used and vegetation types. not used by sloth bears in the North Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya fruiting trees in both ranges had claw Pradesh, India, 1998-2000. marks of sloth bears. Based on the examinationof scats, the fruits of two habitatuse and movement patternsof sloth bears in the shrubs, Ziziphus oenoplia and Ziziphus nummularia, area. seemed to be p)referred by sloth bears. Manjrekar(1989) In in , the density of found that Asiatic black bears in Dachigam National termite mounds in upland sal forests was greater than Park in India also mainly depended on fruits (e.g., alluvial flood plains (Joshi et al. 1995). In the Pendra Prunus avium, Morus alba, Quercus robur, Juglans and Marwahi ranges, the maximum density of termite regia) resultinig in extensive use of forest habitats. mounds occurred near water, followed by plantations, However, in otur study area, fruitingtrees in the forested sal mixed forest, mixed forests, and sal forest. Termite areas predomiinantly were in early age classes with mounds dug by bears likely were more common in areas a relatively loiw fruit supply. Consequently, during the near water because of the large numberof underground winter and m(onsoon seasons, bears were attracted to termite mounds in soft soil, which facilitates digging. crop fields nea]r villages because of the availabilityof ber Overall, most bear sign was found in sal forest habitat (Ziziphus mauritiana), corn, and ground nut (Arachis followed by land near water, sal mixed forest, and mixed hypogaea). Freequent bear use of such areas may be one

Table 2. Fruiting tree density (trees/ha) by habitat types in the North Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh, India, 1998-2000. Mix Sal Sal mixed Crop Scrub Land near Tree species forest forest forest field land water bodies Plantation 2.0 0.6 1.2 2.2 2.1 Anona squamosa 2.2 0.4 Ficus benghalensis 0.3 Aegle marmelos 0.8 1.1 Buchanania lanzan 12.9 24.8 24.3 1.3 3.6 2.1 2.3 Ficus racemosa 0.3 8.5 Syzygium cumini 1.4 2.7 0.6 1.1 6.4 Schleichera oleosa 3.1 2.3 1.8 Madhuca indica 12.0 14.7 26.1 6.4 2.2 6.4 Ficus virens 0.3 1.1 2.9 Ficus religiosa 0.3 0.6 0.4 Diospyros melanoxylon 19.6 16.5 17.4 9.8 1.6 Mangifera indica 0.6 1.1 2.3 Total 55.2 60.4 73.1 7.6 26.4 36.1 4.6

Ursus 15(2):203-211 (2004) SLOTHBEAR HABITAT USE * Akhtar et al. 209

Table 3. Fruiting shrub density (shrubs/ha) in different habitat types in the North Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh, India, 1998-2000. Mixed Sal Sal mix Crop Scrub Open Landnear Species forest forest forest field land land waterbodies Plantation Anona squamosa 27.9 32.4 2.3 15.3 18.2 Cassia fistula 7.8 2.4 5.8 Aegle marmelos 5.6 2.3 11.6 9.1 Ziziphusnummularia 15.6 23.6 67.2 5.1 1 42.5 19.2 Buchananialanzan 12.3 96.7 46.3 4.3 42.5 Syzygiumcumini 4.5 11.8 4.6 3 17 18.2 Briedeliasquamosa 22.4 11.8 64.9 4.3 8.5 9.1 Diospyrosmalabarica 2.2 Ziziphusoenoplia 1.1 1.5 Ficus virens 1.1 Mimusopselengi 1.1 25.5 Diospyrosmelanoxylon 783.3 82.1 133 122.3 668.8 795 424.6 39.4 Schleicheraoleosa 2.32 5.8 Psidiumguajava 8.5 Ficus racemosa 17 Total 884.9 948.4 1,278.5 127.4 735.4 810.3 560.6 473.2 of the major reasons for the increasing number of We attributeuneven distributionand non-occupancy encounterswith humans near villages. of some areas to the lack of suitable habitats and In the Mudumalaiwildlife sanctuary,sloth bear dens denning areas and to the isolation of habitatpatches. In were located in nullas and rocky outcrops (Desai et al. Tangjiahe Nature Reserve, China, Asiatic black bears 1997). In the Pendra and Marwahi ranges, however, (Ursus thibetanus)exhibited distinct range shifts in early sloth bears exclusively used rocky outcrops with large autumn to obtain mast at lower elevations (Reid et al. boulders for denning. We never found bears digging 1991). Among grizzly bears (U. arctos), spacing was dens in stream beds, nullas, or other habitats. In our found to be related to distributionof food resources study area, people gather rain water using traditional (Servheen 1983). Similar observations were made by methods by digging ponds and constructingstop dams. Joshi et al. (1995) for sloth bears in Royal Chitwan Therefore, many ponds and other water bodies were National Park, Nepal, where bears showed shifts from available throughoutthe area. Vegetation cover did not alluvium habitatto upland sal forest. seem to influence use of den sites by sloth bears in Mudumalaiwildlife sanctuary.Similarly, sloth bears in Conservation of bear habitat our area used both with and without study hillocks, Bear habitats and denning areas in the Pendra and most den sites had moderate vegetation cover, although Marwahi ranges, including Lityasarai, Marakot, and to dense vegetation surroundingthem. In the Pendra and Marwahi ranges, sloth bear Table 4. Frequency of sloth bear dens among distance classes to nearest in the North populationswere not evenly distributed.Of all potential village Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh, India, den sites identified across the study area (n = 109), 65 1998-2000. were in the Marwahirange. In the Pendrarange, 41% of Distancefrom Active the den sites were actively used by bears,compared with Temporary Total habitation (m) dens densa dens 59% in the Marwahirange. Because of the presence 'of numerous den sites, the Marwahi has 0-250 12 15 27 range likely 250-500 18 bear densities than the 9 27 greater Pendrarange, which may 500-750 6 5 11 explain the greater number of bear attacks in the 750-1,000 3 5 8 Marwahi range. Generally, men were most vulnerable 1,000-1,250 13 10 23 to bear attacks because are involved in the 1,250-1,500 1 2 3 they 1 collection of non-timber forest 1,500-1,750 5 6 products and livestock 1,750-2,000 0 0 0 grazing. Those activities are concentratedduring early 2,000-2,250 2 2 4 morning hours, when most human-bear incidents Total 56 53 109 seemed to occur. aTemporarydens were used by bears only occasionally.

Ursus 15(2):203-211 (2004) 210 SLOTHBEAR HABITAT USE * Akhtar et al.

Table 5. Frequency of sloth bear dens among the opportunityto work on sloth bears. We are very distance classes to nearest water in the North thankful to the Madhya PradeshForest departmentfor Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh, India, 1998-2000. providing permission for research and for tremendous support and cooperation.We are also thankful to field Distance (m ) Dens assistantsP. Singh and Kamlesh, who spent their sweat 0-250 62 and blood with us for successful completion of this 250-500 22 project. We are to F. van Manen and 2 other 500-750 grateful 6 referees for this 750-1,000 4 improving manuscript.We acknowl- 1,000-1,250 11 edge C. Sharma and R.P. Pandey, Lecturerin District 1,250-1,500 0 Institute of Teaching and Education, and their family 4 1,500-1,750 membersfor providinggreat hospitality and love during the stay at Pendra. Karangara forest areas, have been increasingly en- croached upon by villagers for crop cultivation. That encroachmentis one of the primaryconservation issues Literature cited for sloth bears in this region. Protectionof contiguous AKHTAR, N. 2002. Habitat use, ranging patternand manage- and undisturbed sal forest, sal mixed forest, mixed ment of sloth bear(Melursus urcinus) in NorthBilaspur forest, rocky outcrops,and scrubforest will be important ForestDivision, Madhya Pradesh. Dissertation, Saurastra to maintain sloth bears in the areas. Villagers also UniversityRajkot for Wildlife Institute of India,Dehradun, increasingly remove or cut fruit trees (e.g., Ziziphus India. H.S. 2002. The of the sloth bear mauritiana)near villages that provide importantfoods BARGALI, ecology problematic (Melursus and of human-bearconflicts for sloth bears. Thus, there is a need for education and urcinus) mitigation in BilaspurForest Division, Madhya Pradesh. Dissertation, awarenessamong the villagers about the significanceof SaurastraUniversity Rajkot for WildlifeInstitute of India, these trees for habits of and bears, feeding bears, living Dehradun,India. in with bears. also collect flowers and harmony Villagers CHAMPION,H.B., ANDS.K. SETH.1968. A revised survey of fruits of Madhuca indica, Aegle marmelos,Buchanania foresttypes of India.National Book Trustof India,New lanzan, Ziziphusmauritiana, and Z. nummularia,which Delhi,India. are important food items of sloth bears. A ban on COTTAM,G., ANDJ.T. CURTIS.1956. The use of distance collection of these items may need to be considered.Our measuresin phytosociologicalsampling. Ecology 37:451- data on human-bear conflicts indicated that most 460. Sloth bear's encounters occurred during morning hours when DAVIDAR,E.R.C. 1983. (Melursusursinus) method of for termite nests. Natural villagers graze their cattle and collect forest products. hunting Bombay History Society 80:637. The data from our study may be used to informvillagers DESAI,A.A., N. BHASKARAN,AND S. VENKATESH.1997. about bear with that informationvillagers may ecology; Behavioural ecology of the sloth bear in Mudumalai learn how to avoid bear and minimize activity periods WildlifeSanctuary and National Park. Report. in habitat. disturbances bear and Bombay NaturalHistory Society collaborativeproject. There are many isolated denning areas in the Pendra Bombay NaturalHistory Society, Mumbai, India. (e.g., Barbasan,Tauli, Surungtola)and Marwahiranges GOKULA,V. 1991. Someaspects on the feedinghabits of the (e.g., Katra, Karhaniya)that are surroundedby human sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) at MundanthuraiWildlife settlementand agriculturalfields. Translocationof bears Sanctuary, Tamilnadu (). Thesis, A.V.C. from those areas to areas with more contiguous habitats College, MannambandalTamil Nadu, India. ANDM. VARDHARAJAN.1995. Food habitsof sloth bear may provide a strategy to control bear population , on Mundanthurai TamilNadu, increase, human-bearconflicts in the (Melursusursinus) plateau, therebymitigating India. 13-15. term. Paper January-March: long GOPAL,R. 1991. Ethological observation on the sloth bear (Melursusursinus). IndianForester 975:920. GUPTA, N., AND S.N. PRASAD. 1992. PREFER-BASIC programmefor analysis of habitatpreferences of animals. Acknowledgments WildlifeInstitute of India,Dehradun, India. We are grateful to the Director of the Wildlife JOSHI,A.R., D.L. GARSHELIS,AND J.L.D. SMITH.1995. Home Instituteof India, Dehradun,for giving us an opportu- range of sloth bears in Nepal. Implicationfor conservation. nity to work for this highly prestigiousinstitute, and for WildlifeManagement 59(2):204-214.

Ursus 15(2):203-211 (2004) SLOTHBEAR HABITAT USE * Akhtar et al. 211

KENT,M., ANDP. COKER.1992. Vegetation description and RODGERS,W.A., ANDH.S. PANWAR.1988. Planning a wildlife analysis: A practicalapproach. Belhaven, London, UK. protectedarea networkin India. Wildlife Instituteof India, LAURIE,A., ANDJ. SEIDENSTICKER.1977. Behavioural ecology Dehradun,India. of the sloth bear (Melursus ursinus). Journal of Zoology SANKAR, K., ANDR.S. MURTHY.1995. Assessment of bear-man conflict in North Forest (London) 182:187-204. Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Pradesh. Wildlife Institute of MANJREKAR,N. 1989. Feeding ecology of the Himalayanblack Madhya Report, India, Dehradun,India. bear (Selenarctos thibetanus)in Dachigam National Park. SERVHEEN,C. 1983. Grizzly bear food habits movement and Thesis, Wildlife Instituteof India, Dehradun,India. habitat selection in the mission mountains, Montana. NEU, C.W., C.R. BYERS,AND J.M. PEEK.1974. A technique for Journalof Wildlife Management47:1026-1035. analysis of utilization-availability data. Journalof Wild- SWENSON,J.E., A. JANSSON,R. RIIG,AND F. SANDEGREN.1999. life 38:541-545. Management Bears and ants: myrmecophagyby brown bears in central NoRussIs, M.J. 1994. SPSS/PC + statistical data analysis. Scandinavia.Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:551-561. SPSS USA. Inc., Chicago, Illinois, ZAR,J.H. 1984. Non parametricanova. Biostatisticalanalysis. AND P.R. KRAUSMAN.2000. Human-sloth RAJPUROHIT,K.S., Second edition, Prentice-Hall,Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New bear conflicts in Madhya Pradesh,India. Wildlife Society Jersey, USA. Bulletin 28:393-399. REID,D., M. JIANG,Q. TENG,Z. QIN, ANDJ. Hu. 1991. Ecology Received: 30 July 2002 of the Asiatic black bear in Sichuan, China. Mammalia Accepted: 10 January 2004 55(2):221-237. Associate Editor: F. van Manen

Ursus 15(2):203-211 (2004)