Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity3(4):27-35 (2019) (http://jwb.araku.ac.ir/) DOI: 10.22120/jwb.2019.111565.1076 Research Article

Distribution of Nilgai antelope (Boselaphus tragocamelus) and its interaction with local communities in the Abohar wildlife sanctuary, Northwestern

Parteek Bajwa*, Netrapal Singh Nilgai interaction through vehicle collisions in Chauhan the sanctuary. Considering the expansive views of the respondents on other related animals and Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife, Amity environmental factors, the 3D perceptual maps University, Noida, UP, India were prepared to exhibit a holistic sight of their email: [email protected] opinion which can help strengthen the Received: 18 July 2019 / Revised: 24 July 2019 / Accepted: 28 July 2019 / Published online: 1 August 2019. Ministry of Sciences, management of wild animals in the sanctuary. Research and Technology, Arak University, Iran. Keywords: Antelope, community, conservation, Abstract density, perceptual mapping. The information regarding animal distribution and perceptiveness of local communities play Introduction an essential role in designing and planning India has a rich biological heritage and protected areas, and their management policies comprising nearly 89,451 species, which as well. To this aim, we mapped the includes 390 species of mammals (Kumar and distribution of our focal species, Nilgai Khanna 2006). Among mammals, ungulates are antelope (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in and the vital component as they do not only form around the Abohar wildlife sanctuary from the significant prey base for large mammalian December 2017 to November 2018. Mapping predators but also are considered as indicators the species density helped in identifying the of habitat quality, protection and management critical spots regarding animal density. Our levels (Chopra and Rai 2009). Development in data indicated Nilgai density ranging from agriculture, the industry as well as increased 0.0654 to 6.946 individuals/km2. The seasonal urbanization has dramatically affected the group size of males and females was observed populations of these ecological dislocates to be significantly different throughout (Chauhan and Sawarkar 1989, Singh 1995, (p<0.01) the study period. The mean female Green et al. 2005). group size ranged from 3.91 individuals to 6.26 There are certain species which are indigenous individuals, whereas, in comparison, the and sensitive to particular areas. The average male group size varied less from 4.00 commercial practices of such habitats may individuals to 4.76 individuals. Concurrently, result in loss of these vulnerable species. the attitude of local people towards Nilgai and Intensification of agriculture and conservation its related attributes including crop damage, of cropland generally result in loss of wildlife vehicle collisions and conservation was habitats (Gonseret al. 2009). Consequently, recorded through the semi-structured survey of ungulates are surviving in fragmented habitats, local individuals (n = 139) working in the and occasionally become locally overabundant farming or allied practices. The results showed due to the realization of wildlife values and that 37% of the respondents considered Nilgai timely conservation efforts adopted by man to be responsible for crop depredation, while particularly in protected areas, reserve forests more than 50% perceived negative Human- and surrounding habitats (Singh 1995, Hoseti 28 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 27-35(2019)

2002). Hence, suitable and retirement Materials and Methods programmes can be chosen, leaving some land Study area for a certain period so that these may serve as The Abohar wildlife sanctuary (AWS) is suitable habitats for wild animals. These are located in the Southeast of district of ecological dislocates and continue to be Punjab, India (29°59'57.768"N and affected by land-use practices which have 74°4'47.819"E). The sanctuary is situated disturbed the balanced habitat-species alongside the intersection of three states, relationship (Aryal et al. 2016). Wild animals Haryana, Rajasthan and Punjab (Figure 1). The increasingly migrate into human colonization region is one of the largest producers of cotton and cultivated areas for food resources and (Gossypium arboreum) in Northern India. Also, cause a significant amount of damage to the varieties of wheat (Triticum spp.) and mustard agricultural crops or harm people due to mere (Brassica spp.) are important Rabi (winter) confrontation in India and other parts of the crops available in the vicinity of the protected world (Chauhan 1999, Lenth et al. 2008, area. The sanctuary covers an area of 186.5 Young et al. 2011, Silva-Rodriguez and km2 with scattered 13 villages. The ‘Bishnoi’ Sieving 2012, Home et al. 2018). Agricultural community’s religious belief has played a vital crop damage by such locally copious wildlife role in safeguarding these species from populations has been widely reported from poachers. Micro-regional geography shows many parts of the globe (Chauhan and marked variation in its semi-arid plains with Sawarkar 1989, Weladji and Tchamba 2003, scattered dunes. The soil in the sanctuary is Karanthet al. 2012, Lashleyet al. 2014). fertile, sandy and alluvial. The temperature Although advancement in agricultural practices varies from 5°C in winters to 50°C in summers. and technology, and community development The former starts during the end of November at rural subparts (Bartonička et al. 2018, Favilli when both day and night temperature fall et al. 2018) approaches to the eco-development rapidly, and the latter starts during the end of planning and integrated forest management April. The sanctuary on an average receives an practices are in progress in these areas, such annual rainfall of approximately 120 mm. The measures alone will not help attain the long area within the confines of the sanctuary is term solution to the above conflict situations. under private ownership of local ‘Bishnoi’ In Abohar wildlife sanctuary (AWS), large community, and the economy is mainly herds of the Asian antelope, Nilgai have been agrarian. Agriculture provides sustenance to invading the cultivation areas and feeding on more than 82% of the inhabitants, either crops, causing considerable damage (Bajwa through cultivation or allied occupations. and Chauhan 2019). In this research article, we aim to provide the density distribution of Nilgai Data Collection in the sanctuary area, which is built on the Line transects (n=152, average length=1.39km) private agrarian lands owned by the Bishnoi were laid on the selected roads and agricultural community. Also, we tend to reflect the fields already existing within the network. perception of the local community towards the Traversed transects were passing through the conflict situation leading from the crop damage wildlife sanctuary, croplands, built-up areas, done by these animals. Due to lack of potential canals and other landholdings. During Nilgai predators in the area, and with the restricted sightings, the information about the number of poaching, Nilgai population is multiplying fast individuals, group structure, age and sex was and consequently; the growing damage is recorded. The data were recorded from early engendering serious Human-Nilgai conflict morning 0700 hrs to 1100 hrs and 1500 hrs to affairs in the AWS. 1900 hrs in the evening from December 2017 to November 2018 following Sale and 29 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 27-35(2019)

Berkmuller 1988. The Questionnaire survey was conducted in the sanctuary to know the perception and attitude of the local community all efforts, respondents were not restricted to engaged in farming practices (dominatingly Nilgai only and were asked to express their ‘Bishnoi’) towards human-interactions through views about any related attribute or other semi-structured interviews (n=139). The animals. To avoid overrated response, the responses were collected from January 2018 to objective of the survey was explained to make May 2018. The interviews were conducted in sure that they did not misinterpret it as a part of the local languages, and both male and female any subsidy scheme attempt. respondents were encouraged to participate. In

Figure 1. Location map of the Abohar wildlife sanctuary, India

Data analysis the direction in which the attribute increased The data recorded were analysed in Spatio- while moving away from the origin along that temporal scale to understand the kernel density line. The longer and closer attribute line to a distribution of Nilgai, seasonal group structure perceived ‘risk’ (red sphere) mentioned earlier and attitude of local people. The kernel density by the respondents exhibited the greater map of Nilgai distribution was prepared using importance of that particular attribute in the ArcGIS (10.2.2) software. The Z test apropos of each factor. statistics were performed to test seasonal differences in Nilgai male and female group Results structure (number of individuals). To prospect The kernel density distribution of Nilgai the local community’s attitude towards Nilgai (Figure 2) in and around the Abohar wildlife and its related attributes together, perceptual sanctuary was mapped. It was observed that the maps were prepared using the positioning minimum and the maximum range of kernel model software in DecisionPro, Inc. The density of Nilgai population was 0.0654 2 2 attribute lines on the perceptual map indicated individuals/km and 6.9460 individuals/km , respectively. Thehighlighted areas (red) in the 30 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 27-35(2019) map reflected the regions with the highest revealed that the average male and female Nilgai densities while the darker regions group size of Nilgai was significantly different (green) represent the sites with significantly (p<0.01) from December 2017 through lower Nilgai densities in the sanctuary. The November 2018 (Table 1). The mean seasonal group size of Nilgai male and female proportion of female groups was also found to population (Figure 3) was recorded during the be larger than male groups during all the study period. Further scrutinization of the data seasons except for April-July.

Table 1. Group size variation of Nilgai male and female in Abohar wildlife sanctuary

Mean group size Mean group size Season Z statistics (Nilgai Male) (Nilgai Female) December-March 4.00 6.26 -8.588 (p < 0.01) April-July 4.47 3.91 2.782 (p < 0.01) August-November 4.76 5.90 -3.624 (p < 0.01)

Figure 2. Kernel density distribution of Nilgai antelope in Abohar wildlife sanctuary

31 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 27-35(2019)

Figure 3. Seasonal group size variation in mean groups of Nilgai male and female from December 2017 to November 2018

Figure 4. 3D perceptual maps of the Bishnoi community (n=139) on different attributes in Abohar wildlife sanctuary a) Overall b) Crop damage c) Vehicle collision d) Conservation 32 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 27-35(2019)

The minimum and maximum recorded values variance and hence, the importance of the axis of Nilgai males in a group during the study in explaining the percipience of respondents. period were two and ten, respectively. The horizontal X-axis (abscissa) explained However, on the other side, the minimum and 75.1% of the variance while the vertical Y the maximum number of individuals in female (ordinate) and Z-axis (applicate) illustrated groups were observed to be 2 and 19, only 17.40% and 6.8% of the variation in the respectively. A close examination of figure 3 perception of respondents, respectively. This further revealed that the females exhibited further describes that the horizontal X-axis was more fluctuations in group size than the males. four times as important in explaining A total number of 139 individuals (53% community perception. Thus, the orientation of females and 47% males) of the local Bishnoi perceptual maps revealed that local people community participated in the survey and perceive Nilgai to have 37% greater extent of expressed concern about the various attributes damaging crops as compared to other factors related to Nilgai including crop damage, like blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), weather, vehicle collisions (VCs) and conservation stray animals and pest. However, Nilgai (55%) value. The respondents were extensively had a higher perceived threat of VCs mentioned allowed to mention other animals or factors by 77 respondents (Table 2) followed by stray linked with the attributes mentioned earlier. It animals, blackbuck, weather and pests. was visible from the perceptual maps that Confoundingly, the perceptual maps further respondents view crop damage and vehicle described that the entire community was still of collisions (VCs) to be closely related. An the opinion that Nilgai and blackbuck holds a overall and individual 3D perceptual maps firm conservation value and should be were prepared based on the information protected (for mutual existence) as a part of received from the interviewees (Figure 4). The their religious customs. three-axis on the perceptual maps explained the

Table 2. Perceived response of the local people towards crop damage, vehicle collisions and conservation of Nilgai antelope in Abohar wildlife sanctuary (n=139)

Number of Respondents mentioning a No. of male No. of Female Attribute particular attribute Respondents Respondents

Crop damage 52 34 18

Vehicle collisions 77 51 26 Conservation 133 60 73

Discussion formation. These antelopes are chased by the It is being debated, both for and against, since free ranging feral dogs (Bajwa and Chauhan long about declaring Nilgai antelope a vermin 2019, Rana 2011, Jagga 2018) and driven away in various states of India. This antelope, along from the agricultural fields, and as a result, the with blackbuck, is protected by some entire population of Nilgai remains disturbed communities like the Bishnoi (Hundal 2004, throughout the sanctuary. The calculated kernel Pathak 2009) as a part of their religious density range of Nilgai antelope (0.06 to 6.95 2 customs. However, it is essential to mention individuals/km ) during this first study in the here that the peculiar environment conditions agrarian landscapes of Abohar wildlife for Nilgai in the current study area does not sanctuary was within the range of the estimated give enough freedom for group structuring and Nilgai density around similar protected areas 33 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 27-35(2019) within the country (Chauhan and Sawarkar indicated the developing intolerance towards 1989). Notably, a comparable number of the damage which was found vital for the individuals 2-6 individuals/km2 were recorded consideration while mitigating issues of in a past study conducted in similar landscape conflict. Almost all the respondents of the (Singh 1995). The results exhibited that the community expressed unhappiness on the non- females showed a higher degree of fluctuations existence of compensation schemes for crop in group formation than the males. This could damage due to animals and perceived that the be attributed to the breeding time of the Nilgai particular issue should be addressed on the antelope. The mean female group size which order of equal priority from large animals to was more extensive during the breeding season pests (to safeguard farmer’s interest of animal (6.26 individuals) from December to March protection without leading to intolerance). decreased to 3.91 individuals during the Through capitalising the community’s summer season (April to July) and later theological outlook and preserving their increased to 5.90 individuals during August to attitude, the national administrative bodies can November. On the other side, the average male improve the conservation status of Nilgai in the group size throughout all the seasons ranged region. from 4 to 4.76 individuals. This information can help in better understanding of the Nilgai Conclusion distribution in the sanctuary for its management This study highlights the density distribution and planning. Variation in the Nilgai female map of Nilgai antelope throughout the Abohar group structure is also related to the calving wildlife sanctuary. Different density regions activity influenced by the extrinsic factors. The identified in the map can help to prioritise the Nilgai calves and young ones tend to shelter management action plans of the government more than the adults and do not follow their (taking into account the community’s mothers much. Due to the dense cropping perception) for the species conservation. The pattern existing in the study area throughout the present study delineates two essential elements; year, they could not be located and thus kernel density distribution of Nilgai throughout accounted in the observations. As per the the sanctuary area, and views of local people previous reports, farmers considered crop loss about the antelope, required for the mitigation due to wild animals to be the most significant strategies in an unexplored community factor responsible for human-wildlife conflict conserved area. It is evident from the results (Bayani et al. 2016). This substantiates the that reinforcing the perspective of the local results of the present study, where more than people by the introduction of compensation 37% of the local people had a perception of tool, knowledge seminars (regarding the Nilgai as a threat to their crops. They further importance of biodiversity and role of wild mentioned that the magnitude of crop loss done animals) and training workshops, can sustain through trampling or fighting is far higher than the support of local people for Nilgai that of feeding. conservation. Such initiatives can protect the Moreover, the community have claimed that legacy of mutual existence of the Bishnoi limited herbivory helps stimulate regeneration community and Nilgai antelope in the Abohar of crops. Vehicle collisions have been recently wildlife sanctuary. reported as one of the primary concern in the area (Jagga 2018, Bajwa and Chauhan 2019) as Acknowledgements the community owned sanctuary serves one We are thankful to the Department of Science state highway, a major ancillary road and and Technology, Government of India for several residential roads through it. The providing the funding support through Inspire response of a few male respondents also 34 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 27-35(2019) fellowship scheme. We are also grateful to the nilgai and blackbuck in Haryana and Wildlife division of the Punjab Forest Madhya Pradesh and their management. Department (India) for the permissions, full Indian Forester 115(7): 488-93. cooperation and help in conducting the Chopra G., Rai D. 2009. Ecological studies on research. We wish to sincerely thank Dr D C population structure and food habits of Loshali and his team, Punjab Remote Sensing Nilgai, Boselaphus tragocamelus Pallas Centre, Punjab Agricultural University, India, (Artiodactyla, Bovidae) in Saraswati for their valuable inputs in the interpretation of Plantation Wildlife Sanctuary, Haryana satellite data and mapping the study area. We (India). Journal of Experimental Zoology thank S. Kulwant Singh and all the field assistants for their support during interviews 13(1): 43-49. and data collection. Thanks to DrAvneetKaur Favilli F., Bíl M., Sedoník J., Andrášik R., for language editing. Kasal P., Agreiter A., Streifeneder T. 2018. Application of KDE+ software to identify References collective risk hotspots of ungulate-vehicle Aryal A., Lamsal R.P., Ji W., Raubenheimer collisions in South Tyrol, Northern Italy. D. 2016. Are there sufficient prey and European Journal of Wildlife Research 64: protected areas in Nepal to sustain an 59. increasing tiger population?. Ethology Gonser RA, Jensen RR, Wolf SE. 2009. The Ecology and Evolution 28: 117-120. Bajwa P., Chauhan N.P.S. 2019. Impact of spatial ecology of deer–vehicle collisions. agrarian land use and land cover practices Applied Geography 29: 527–532. on survival and conservation of nilgai Green R.E., Cornell S.J., Scharlemann J.P.W., antelope (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in and Balmford A. 2005. Farming and the Fate of around the Abohar wildlife sanctuary, Wild Nature. Science 307: 550-555. Northwestern India. Ecoscience 26(3): Home C., Bhatnagar Y.V., Vanak A.T. 2018. 279- 289. Canine conundrum: domestic dogs as an Bayani A., Tiwade D., Dongre A., Dongre invasive species and their impacts on A.P., Phatak R., Watve A. 2016. wildlife in India. Animal Conservation 21: Assessment of crop damage by 275-282. protected wild mammalian herbivores on Hoseti B.B. 2002.Glimpses of biodiversity. the western boundary of Tadoba Andhari Delhi: Daya Publishing House. Tiger Reserve (TATR), Central India. Hundal S.S. 2004. Wildlife conservation PLoS ONE 11(4): e0153854. strategies and management in India: an Bartonička T., Andrášik R., Duľa M., Sedoník overview. In Proceedings of the Species at J., Bíl M. 2018. Identification of local Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery factors causing clustering of Conference, Victoria Conference animalvehicle collisions. Journal of Centre, B.C., Canada, 2-6 March 2004. Wildlife Management 82: 940-947. Jagga R. 2018. Two more black bucks die in Chauhan N.P.S. 1999. Evaluation of crop Abohar sanctuary. Indian Express. damage in the eco-development project https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/cha area to suggest mitigation measures. ndigarh/two-more-black-bucks-die-in Project Report: Dehradun, Uttarakhand: abohar-sanctuary/. Downloaded on 6 July Wildlife Institute of India. 2019. Chauhan N.P.S., Sawarkar V.B. 1989. Karanth K.K., Gopalaswamy A.M., DeFries Problems of over abundant populations of R., Ballal N. 2012. Assessing patterns of 35 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 27-35(2019)

human-wildlife conflicts and compensation 2019. around a central Indian protected area. Silva-Rodriguez E.A., Sieving K.E. 2012. PLOS ONE 7(12): e50433. Domestic dogs shape the landscape-scale Kumar A., Khanna V. 2006. Globally distribution of a threatened forest ungulate. threatened Indian fauna - Status, issues and Biological Conservation 150: 103-110. prospects. Kolkata, West Bengal: Singh R. 1995. Some studies on the ecology Zoological Survey of India. and behaviour of Nilgai (Boselaphus Lashley M.A., Chitwood M.C., Harper C.A., tragocamelus Pallas) with an Assessment Moorman C.E., DePerno C.S. 2014. of Damage to Agricultural Crops and Collection, handling and analysis of Development of Strategy for Damage forages for concentrate selectors. Wildlife Control in South-Western Haryana. PhD Biology in Practice 10: 6-15. Thesis: Centre of wildlife and Lenth B., Knight R., Brennan M.E. 2008. The ornithology, Aligarh Muslim University, effects of dogs on wildlife communities. U.P. India. Natural Areas Journal 28: 218–227. Weladji R.B., Tchamba M.N. 2003. Conflict Pathak N. 2009. Community Conserved Areas between people and protected areas within in India – A Directory. Pune, Maharashtra: the Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, Kalpavriksh. North Cameroon. Oryx 37: 72-79. Rana Y. 2011. Black bucks thrive in Abohar Young J.K., Olson K.A., Reading R.P., sanctuary. Times of India. https:// times of Amgalanbaatar S., Berger J. 2011. Is india. indiatimes. com/india/Black-bucks wildlife going to the dogs? Impacts of thrive-in-Abohar sanctuary/articleshow feral and free-roaming dogs on wildlife /7624453.cms. Downloaded on 13 July populations. Bioscience 61: 125–132.