sign in sign up
<<
Home , Albizia lebbeck, Bunopithecus, Northeast India, Pineapple

Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7 (2014) 347e354

HOSTED BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/japb

Review article Diversity, habitat preferences, and conservation of the of Southern , : The story of a paradise

Muhammed Khairujjaman Mazumder*

Department of Life Science and Bioinformatics, Assam University, , Assam, India article info abstract

Article history: The southern part of Assam in India, a part of the Indo-Burma , harbors a myriad Received 11 July 2014 number of wild and . Although there is only one protected area, the Barail Wildlife Received in revised form Sanctuary (Cachar district) and a few reserve (RFs), there are as many as eight primates inhabiting 2 October 2014 the region e a diversity hardly found elsewhere. In addition to the protected area and RFs, gardens Accepted 7 October 2014 and secondary forests also serve as habitats for . The border areas of the region with the states of Available online 17 October 2014 , , , and are among the most important abodes of these primates. Unfortunately, these primates are under constant threat from multiple sources. The present article Keywords: Barail wildlife sanctuary provides an extensive survey of the available on the primates of southern Assam with reference fi Conservation to their distribution, habitat preferences, threats, and conservation. Additionally, data from eld obser- Inner line reserve vations of the author are also presented. primates Copyright Ó 2014, National Science Museum of Korea (NSMK) and Korea National Arboretum (KNA). Southern Assam Production and hosting by Elsevier. All rights reserved.

Introduction The primary river of the region is Barak, with its tributaries and distributaries (the region is also referred to as Barak Valley). Assam, a state located in , falls under two The river acts as one of the most prominent geographic barriers global biodiversity hotspots: the Indo-Burma and the Himalayan in the area. The physical of the region includes the (Myers et al., 2000; Mittermeier et al., 2004). It is one of the Barak , tropical evergreen and semievergreen forests, places with the highest primate diversity in India (Choudhury, tropical deciduous forests, tea planted areas, secondary forests, 1986, 1993, 2002a, 2013). The southern part of Assamdcom- wetlands, monoculture orchards, and crop fields (Choudhury, prising the districts of Cachar, Karimganj, and Hailakandi 2013). Currently, the only protected area in the region is the (Figure 1)dcovers a total area of 6962 km2 and receives an Barail WS of Cachar district (Choudhury, 2005a), although the annual rainfall of >300 cm. Of the total area, the Barail Wildlife proposal for a new Dhaleswari WS is under process. In addition, Sanctuary (WS; Cachar district), Katakhal Reserve Forest (RF), and Inner Line RF, Katakhal RF, and Bhubhan Range are among the Inner Line RF (of ) cover 1067 km2.OtherRFsof other abodes of primates of this region (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995a, southern Assam include Badshaitilla RF, Duhalia RF, Longai RF, 1996a). Patharia RF, Singla RF, Tilbhum RF, and NC Hills RF of Karimganj In the early decades of the 20th century, tea plantations exac- district, which cover a total area of 73,295.437 ha; while, Barak erbated the deforestation and fragmentation of the habitats of RF, Inner Line RF (parts), Katakhal RF (parts), Lower Jiri RF, Sonai many mammalian species (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995a, 1996a, RF, Upper Jiri RF, and Barail RF of Cachar district cover an area of 1996b). Additionally, poaching, jhum cultivation, increase in 86,284.54 ha. developmental activities, construction, etc., have pushed many of the primates to the brink of local extinction. However, the region is still imbued with enormous primate diversity and remains a stronghold of eight primates (Figure 2): hoolock , capped langur, Phayre’s langur, rhesus , , and * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 9401429161. stump-tailed macaque, Assamese macaque, and pig-tailed ma- E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. caque (Choudhury, 1996a, 1997, 2000a, 2013). Except for the rhesus Peer review under responsibility of National Science Museum of Korea (NSMK) and macaque, these primates are not well adapted to human-modified Korea National Arboretum (KNA). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2014.10.001 2287-884X/Copyright Ó 2014, National Science Museum of Korea (NSMK) and Korea National Arboretum (KNA). Production and hosting by Elsevier. All rights reserved. 348 MK Mazumder / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7 (2014) 347e354

Figure 1. Sketch map of southern Assam. (A) Map of India highlighting Assam. (B) Map of Assam highlighting southern Assam.

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; Brockelman et al., 2008)], thereby enjoying maximum protection. The distribution of these animals in the region was originally mapped by Corbett and Hill (1992), whereas a recent distribution map in northeast India, including southern Assam, was made by Choudhury (2013). It is one of the most extensively studied pri- mates, and an extensive literature is available on the animal from various regions of northeast India (Alfred and Sati, 1990; Choudhury, 1990a, 2000b, 2006b, 2009a, 2009b; Mukherjee et al., 1992). Hoolock prefer more elevated, dense forests with continuous canopy. Their habitat type includes tropical evergreen, semievergreen, deciduous, and secondary forests (Choudhury, 2001a, 2005a). Gibbons are often found in tea garden areas that harbor tall canopied with larger and denser forest areas (Figure 3). However, they often visit low-lying areas at the fringes of forests, indicating an insufficient amount of food trees in their habitat. Their mode of locomotion, food preferences, presence of food trees, and continuous canopy are among the major factors restricting their distribution in dense forests. In southern Assam, a good number of hoolock gibbons are found in the Cachar district (Choudhury, 2009a) as well as in other districts, specifically in the Figure 2. Primate-concentrated regions of southern Assam. (1) The Barail Wildlife Sanctuary and the adjoining areas harbor all the primates except for Trachypithecus phayrei. (2) The Inner LineeKatakhaleSinglaeBarak reserve forest complex harbors the highest primate diversity in the region with eight species.

habitats and are thus under intense threat owing to habitat destruction. This present article focuses on the habitat preferences, distribution, and conservation of the primates in the region.

Different primates of southern Assam

Western (Hoolock hoolock)

Western hoolock gibbons are the most endangered species of primates and are the only found in this region (Walker et al., 2009). They form monogamous mating pairs along with offspring (Choudhury, 1988b, 1991; Gupta, 2005; Siddiqi, 1986) and is locally known as “Hookoo Bandor.” It is redlisted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN; now known as the World Conservation Union) as an “endangered” species [included in the Schedule I of Indian Wildlife (Protection) Figure 3. The preferred habitat of hoolock gibbonsda dense forest with continuous Act, 1972, and Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade canopy, which is similar to the preferred habitat of Bengal slow lorises. MK Mazumder / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7 (2014) 347e354 349

Inner Line RF, Katakhal RF, and Barail WS (Choudhury,1996b, 2005a, with a good number of individuals include Serispore, Rosekandy, 2013). A recent population estimation in the Inner Line RF of Cachar Putni, Barjalenga, Irongmara, and Derby (Bose, 2003; Choudhury, revealed 33 individuals in an area of 39.7 km2 ( et al., 2013a, 2004), which are actually fragmented sections of RFs. Although 2013b). It should be noted that Inner Line RF is one of the most locally common in certain places (Choudhury, 2001a, 2001b; Molur gibbon-concentrated regions in the state (Das, 2002e2003; Islam et al., 2003), the species is threatened by jhum cultivation, poaching et al., 2013a, 2013b). Tea gardens and other places with good pop- by different ethnic groups, deforestation, timbering (Bose, 2003; ulation sizes include the Bhuban Range, Shahapur, Mesipur, Man- Choudhury, 2004), and decrease in forest produces/food trees ipur tea estate (TE), Katlicherra TE, and Silcoorie TE, including the (Gupta, 1997), and is thus declining in population (Choudhury, border areas (Choudhury, 1988a, 1988b, 1995a, 1996a, 2013). 1988a, 1995a, 1996a).

Phayre’s langur (Trachypithecus phayrei phayrei) (Nycticebus bengalensis)

Choudhury (1987) reported the occurrence of Phayre’s langurs The occurrence of Bengal slow lorises (Nycticebus bengalensis)in in southern Assam from Inner Line RF in 1986, although it was the region was reported by Choudhury (1997), and a recent dis- surmised previously (Choudhury, 1983a, 1983b). Subsequent re- tribution report can be found in the work of Choudhury (2013). The ports of these animals in the region as well as other adjoining states IUCN has redlisted them as a “vulnerable” species [included in the were provided by Choudhury (1988c, 1994a, 1994b, 1997, 2004, Schedule I of India Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and Appendix I of 2013). They have been redlisted by the IUCN as an “endangered” CITES; Nekaris and Nijman, 2007; Nekaris et al., 2008; Streicher species [included in the Schedule I of Indian Wildlife (Protection) et al., 2008]. Act, 1972; Appendix II of CITES (Bleisch et al., 2008)], and are locally These primates are small in size and nocturnal in habit, and are called “Kala Honumaan.” A recent distribution map has been pro- extremely shy toward humans, which makes population estima- vided by Choudhury (2013). The acts as a physical tion difficult (Srivastava and Mohnot, 2001); they are thus called barrier to the distribution of these primates and restricts them to “Lajuki” or “Lojyaboti Banor.” They reside in dense forest habitats the south of the river, which accounts for their absence in the Barail with thickly leaved trees; they are often seen in planta- WS (Choudhury, 2013). tions in tropical evergreen, semievergreen, and deciduous forests They prefer dense forest areas with continuous trees (Figure 4) (Figure 2), and they feed largely on exudates. They are re- and are absent from tea plantations and small forest patches. This is ported in all three districts, and a few individuals are often sighted because the animals form troops of 20e30 individuals in most of in most RFs including the Inner Line RF, Bhuban Range, Katakhal RF, their present habitats in southern Assam, a number that can hardly Upper Jiri RF, and Lower Jiri RF as well as in Barail WS (Choudhury, be supported by such habitats. The forest type preferred by these 1988b, 1988c, 1989a, 1992a, 1997, 2005a, 2013). TEs with adjoining primates includes tropical evergreen, semievergreen, deciduous, forest areas also serve as their abode, which include Rosekandy, and secondary forests (Aziz and Feeroz, 2009; Suarez, 2013); they Katakhal, Chivitavechia, and Barjalenga (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995a, are also often found in bamboo-dominated forests where the plant 1996a, 1997). In the past few decades, their population has serves both as dwelling and food tree (Choudhury, 1987, 1994a, declined drastically in all habitats. Habitat loss, poaching, and oc- 1994b, 1996a, 1996b). They are purely an arboreal species, and casional road accidents are the reasons for the decline of the spe- they rarely set on the ground (Gupta, 2000). Their habitats cies in most parts of northeast India (Choudhury, 1992a, 1997, often overlap with those of hoolock gibbons, capped langurs, and 2007b; Gupta, 2001; Radhakrishna et al., 2006; Srivastava and slow lorises (Choudhury, 1990b). However, they are often reported Mohnot, 2001); however, road accidents are not reported from from TEs that have dense forest areas. The largest population is southern Assam. found in the Inner Line RF and Katakhal RF, whereas small pop- ulations are reported from Patharia hills, Longai, Shingla, Bad- Blond-bellied capped langur (Trachypithecus pileatus pileatus) shahitilla, Tilbhum, Dholai, etc. (Bose, 2003; Choudhury, 2004). TEs Preliminary data on the presence of capped Langur in southern Assam were provided by Choudhury (1997). This species is red- listed by the IUCN as “vulnerable” [included in the Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and Appendix I of CITES; Das et al., 2008]. Among the four or probably five subspecies of capped langurs, T. pileatus pileatus is found in the region (Groves, 2001). These animals are relatively abundant in areas with dense for- ests with low elevations or areas as well as high elevations in tropical evergreen, semievergreen, deciduous, broad-leaved, and bamboo forests (Choudhury, 2001b; Molur et al., 2003; Srivastava and Mohnot, 2001). They are found to live in dense forests whereby rhesus or Assamese are less abundant (Choudhury, 1989b, 1990d). However, the species has been found to be sympatric with Presbytes geei (Golden Langur) in other habitats (Choudhury, 1990c, 1992b, 2008a). It is the most common langur of the region and seen in almost all undisturbed or relatively less disturbed forest areas, including Inner Line RF, Barail WS, Katakhal RF, and Bhuban Range (Choudhury, 2001b, 2005a). The tea gardens also serve as one of their important habitats (Figure 5), and these animals have been observed in most tea gardens such as Rosekandy TE, Borakai TE, Serispore TE, Barjalenga TE, Ratanpur TE, Salchapra Figure 4. The habitat type of Phayre’s langurs. They prefer dense forests with tall and continuous trees. The habitat overlaps with those of Assamese macaques, pig-tailed TE, Manipur TE, and Katlicherra TE (Choudhury, 1988a, 1988b, macaques, and stump-tailed macaques. 1989b, 1990b, 1995a, 1996a, 1996b). However, they are rarely seen 350 MK Mazumder / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7 (2014) 347e354

(2013). The subspecies M. nemestrina leonina is found in southern Assam and other parts of northeast India. These animals are pre- dominantly terrestrial, diurnal, and frugivorous (Choudhury, 2002a, 2008b). They prefer dense forests and have been found to raid crop fields as well (Richardson et al., 2008). Their interaction with other primates is profound (Choudhury, 2002c, 2005b, 2010). The species distribution is similar to that of stump-tailed macaques (Choudhury, 1988a, 1989b, 2003a, 2003b). Barail WS and Inner Line RF are among the wild habitats of these primates (Choudhury, 1988a, 1988b, 1989a, 1995a, 1996a, 2005a, 2013).

Assamese macaque (Macaca assamensis assamensis)

Assamese macaques are another rare macaque species that can be found in the region (Choudhury, 1995b, 1996b). The IUCN has redlisted this group as a “near threatened” species [included in the Appendix II of CITES and Schedule II(I) of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Boonratana et al., 2008]. Of the different subspecies, M. assamensis assamensis is found in southern Assam in Figure 5. Habitats of capped langurs. This group prefers dense forest areas as well as such areas as Barail WS, Inner Line RF, and Katakhal RF (Choudhury, areas near tea plantations. Capped langurs are sympatric in these habitats with rhesus macaques. 1988a, 1995a, 1996a). Chetry et al. (2003) estimated the average group size to be 13.93 individuals. These animals are diurnal, omnivorous, and both terrestrial as in tea garden areas that lack nearby forest areas as well as those well as arboreal (Choudhury, 1988b, 2001a, 2001b). They live in areas that are more elevated and have an abundance of gibbons or tropical and subtropical evergreen and semievergreen forests, de- Phayre’s langurs as they show different habitat preferences. ciduous forests, and montane forests with high elevations The higher abundance of these animals is attributed to the (Srivastava and Mohnot, 2001). smaller troop sizes (n ¼ 6e10 individuals), which can be easily maintained by smaller forest areas. That the animals are often Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta mulatta) abundant in tea gardens is attributed to the presence of shade trees such as Dalbergia sisso and lebbeck, which are among the The distribution and status of rhesus macaques in northeast preferred food trees of these animals (Solanki et al., 2008). In India was mapped by Choudhury (2013). It is included in the Ap- addition, Gmelina arborea, which is also consumed by capped lan- pendix II of CITES and Schedule II(I) of Indian Wildlife (Protection) gurs (Solanki et al., 2008), is planted for timber production in TEs. Act, 1972 (Timmins et al., 2008). They are the most common pri- Although the population status of this species is declining, southern mate in Assam; they inhabit mainly plain areas but are rarely found Assam continues to harbor a very high density of these primates. in higher hills and forests (Choudhury, 1988b, 1996a, 1997, 2013). Among the four subspecies, M. mulatta mulatta is found in southern Stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides arctoides) Assam (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995a). In (India), M. mulatta are found in group sizes of 12.3 individuals Stump-tailed macaques are one of the rarest primates (Chetry et al., 2003). In northeast India including Assam, d (Choudhury, 2001a), and one of the four subspecies M. arctoides Choudhury (2013) reported the size to be > 100 individuals. d arctoides is found in southern Assam (Choudhury, 1988a, 1988b, However, in southern Assam, troops of 30e40 individuals are “ ” 1989a, 1991). It is redlisted by the IUCN as a vulnerable species generally found. They have sizable populations throughout their [included in the Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, range in southern Assam, tolerate a wide range of human in- 1972 (Srivastava and Mohnot, 2001) and Appendix II of CITES; Htun terferences, and are thus categorized as “least concern” by the et al., 2008]. Unfortunately, they are among the least-studied ani- IUCN. However, wild population of this primate species are mals of the region. declining in Assam (Srivastava and Mohnot, 2001), including Of the three districts, Cachar has a viable population, whereas southern Assam. very small populations are found in other two districts (Choudhury, Rhesus macaques inhabit all types of natural as well as human- 2002b). Barail WS, Inner Line RF, and Katakhal RF are among the modified habitats throughout their distribution range. However, areas with viable populations of these animals (Choudhury, 1988a, they are observed mainly near human settlements and forest 1995a, 1996a). Their preferred habitats include tropical evergreen, patches that fall around forest or hilly areas, and in places with semievergreen, and moist deciduous forests, and generally dense sparse or discontinuous forest cover near human habitats. They also forests (Choudhury, 2001a, 2001b, 2002b; Molur et al., 2003; migrate constantly from one place to another in search for food Srivastava and Mohnot, 2001). They are arboreal, terrestrial, and because their troop size is generally larger than can be supported diurnal, generally feeding on , tender , , and rarely by a small area. Although rhesus macaques have been found to on insects and small (Molur et al., 2003). forage in areas that form the foraging sites of T. pileatus, they do not spend nights in the forests where T. pileatus do. However, solitary Pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina leonina) males, probably those that have been weaned and turned out from parent troops, have also been observed at dusk in the forests near Pig-tailed macaques are also one of the rarest and least-studied troops of T. pileatus. They prefer low elevations and are omnivorous, macaques of the region. The IUCN has redlisted the species as diurnal, and terrestrial, inhabiting tropical and temperate mixed “vulnerable” [included in the Schedule II(I) of Indian Wildlife forests, deciduous forest, bamboo dominant forests, crop fields, (Protection) Act, 1972 and Appendix II of CITES]. A recent distri- temples, etc. (Choudhury, 2001b; Srivastava and Mohnot, 2001; bution map of these primates has been provided by Choudhury Timmins et al., 2008). MK Mazumder / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7 (2014) 347e354 351

Conservation issues

The major threats to the wildlife of the region include habitat loss and fragmentation, poaching, human interference, mono- culture plantation, timbering, encroachment into forest areas, and humaneprimate conflicts (Choudhury, 1988b, 1988c, 1991, 2001b, 2013; Molur et al., 2005).

Habitat loss and fragmentation

Habitat loss and fragmentation are the biggest threats to the wildlife of northeast India, including southern Assam (Mazumdar et al., 2011; Srivastava, 2006). Owing to deforestation, many pri- mates have restricted themselves to tea gardens, secondary forests, and human habitations, whereas owing to shrinkage of their range, the troop sizes of many species have increased in certain places. Phayre’s langurs were reported to form troops of 6e10 individuals in other regions (Gupta and Kumar, 1994), whereas its troop size in most habitat patches in southern Assam is now 20e30 individuals. In many parts of the region, the forest cover and canopy no longer remain continuousdwhich is considered a serious threat for pri- Figure 6. Jhum cultivation is mainly done for planting Piper beetle. Jhumming is one of mates (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995a, 1996a). Hoolock gibbons have the major threats that cause habitat destruction as well as fragmentation. been found to stay on land and move between small forest patches and food trees in villages and sleep at very low altitudes (Choudhury, 1991; Kakati, 1997, 1999, 2004), making them vulner- Deforestation for plantation able to attacks from humans as well as other animals, mainly do- mestic dogs. One of the major threats to the continued survival of these an- imals is deforestation. The greatest primate habitat fragmentation Jhum cultivation was caused by deforestation for tea plantations in the past; today, the threat continues to persist in the form of deforestation for Jhum cultivation (a slash-and-burn type of shifting cultivation), rubber plantations. Every year, the area used for tea plantations as it is with most other places in northeast India, is one of the continues to increase, accompanied by deforestation (Choudhury, biggest threats to wildlife habitats, including those used by pri- 2013; Rodgers and Panwar, 1988). In the past decade, establish- mates (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995a, 1996a; Johnsingh, 1985; Katti, ment of rubber plantations has gained tremendous pace in the 1992). Jhum cultivation is done mainly by tribal communities for forest areas of the region, which has led to the destruction of large planting several trees, fruits, vegetables, as well as Piper beetle. P. forest covers. Deforestation of dense forest cover is most detri- beetle, one of the most commonly cultivated by the Khasi mental to the slow lorises, hoolock gibbons, and Phayre’s langurs tribe, fetches good market value and is consumed in combination (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995b, 1996a), because the habitats of these with Areca catechu nuts as a psychostimulant and mouth fresh- animals are easily fragmented as these are purely arboreal species ener. Jhum cultivation has devastated large forest covers through (Islam et al., 2013a; Srivastava, 1999). However, these practices are the creation of canopy gaps and depletion of food (Choudhury, less likely to harm the rhesus macaques. 1987, 2013; Islam et al., 2013a). Moreover, Jhum cultivation leads to soil erosion and landslidesdwhich are common in certain Timbering and fuel wood collection places (Figure 6). Unfortunately, jhum cultivation is usually done in areas that fall within the habitat range of the N. bengalensis, Timbering is done for a large number of uses, such as con- H. hoolock, and T. phayrei, thus devastating the habitats of the most struction of houses, bridges, commonly used implements, and threatened species (Choudhury, 1995b, 2000a). Slow lorises are agricultural tools. of large trees such as Gmelina arborea, often seriously harmed and even burned by fires resulting from Tectona grandis, and Shorea robusta, which fetch good market value, this practice as these animals freezedrather than fleedwhen is very common here. These plants form the microhabitats as well facing danger. as limit the distribution of many primates (Choudhury, 1995b). Lorises have often been found within the timber logs that have Monoculture plantation already been cut (Biswas et al., 2009).

In many parts of the region, monoculture plantations are established for cultivation of timber plants, crop plants, as well as Encroachment other commercially important plants such as Areca cathechu, rub- ber, banana, bamboo, , sugarcane, mango, , jack- It is a very unfortunate truth that most of the RFs in the region , and guava. Unfortunately, these practices are common in most have suffered from encroachment by the growing human pop- of the forest areas, including Inner Line RF (Islam et al., 2013a). This ulations as well as their livestock (Islam et al., 2013a), thereby leads to fragmentation of the habitats and populations, and causes shrinking the habitats of most of the primates (Choudhury, 1988b, habitat destruction and decrease in soil fertility. The paper mill of 1988c). With regard to encroachment, one of the most degraded Panchgram (Hailakandi) has also exacerbated monoculture as well and deforested RFs is the Longai RFdrecords show that this forest as deforestation in most parts of southern Assam (Choudhury, has been overexploited for bamboo and paddy cultivation (Bose, 1995b, 2007a). 2003; Choudhury, 1995b, 2000a). 352 MK Mazumder / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7 (2014) 347e354

Depletion of food plants predators. The juveniles and subadults of most primatesdwhich are less experienceddoften catch hold of electric lines. Moreover, Although most primates have a highly adapted digestive system catching and making pets of macaques, mainly the rhesus and to survive on tree leaves, flowers, fruits, bark, and tender stems stump-tailed macaques, are not uncommon. Primates are some- (Kay and Davies, 1994), the depletion of food trees is threatening times killed on the road by speeding vehicles, although this does their survival here. In dense forest areas, illegal logging activities not happen too often in this region. are very common, leading to a lack of sufficiently tall and large Unfortunately, most people who live in the region are unaware trees. In secondary forests, people generally plant trees that fetch of the present status and the laws pertaining to the conservation of high market prices. As a result, food trees are declining day by day, these primates as hardly any mass awareness program has been which threatens the gibbons, Phayre’s langurs, capped langurs, and undertaken to reverse the trend. Moreover, little study has been slow lorises mostly, as well as other primates. This has also led to performed on the primates, their ecology, threats, and other problems such as raiding of crop fields by macaques conservation. (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995b, 1996a). Discussion Poaching The world’s tropical regions harbor most of the global biodi- Like other parts of northeast India, where killing of primates is versity and are unfortunately among the places with maximum common mainly among the tribal people, poaching is common in human pressure on the environment. As a consequence, the pop- the border areas of southern Assam, which are inhabited by tribal ulations of most wild animals are declining at a high rate of communitiesdnotably, the , Mizo, Kuki, and Khasi extinction owing to habitat destruction and fragmentation, and (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995b, 1996a, 2013; Islam et al., 2013a). Un- several other reasons. Additionally, many people, generally those fortunately, these border areas are among the best habitats of these who belong to tribes, kill and consume wildlife including dolphins, primates (Figure 2). In certain places, poachers specifically hunt langurs, squirrel, and deer (Choudhury, 2013). During the late 19th these primates for their skin, hides, bones, skull, etc. Some ethnic century and the early decades of the 20th century, large-scale communities consider the meat of hoolock gibbon to have medic- establishment of tea gardens occurred in northeast India, specif- inal value (Gupta, 2005), whereas the flesh of almost all primates is ically Assam, leading to habitat fragmentation of many rare animals commonly used as food (Choudhury, 1988b, 2013; Das, 2003). in the area. Community hunting for flesh, which is a sociocultural practice in In Assam, the diversity and concentration of primates are rela- most parts of northeast India including southern Assam, is among tively higher in the south of with records of the other major threats to these primates (Biswas, 1970; Islam et al., eight species (Choudhury, 2013). The Barail WS, Inner Line RF, and 2013a, 2013b). Katakhal RF in the southern part of Assam are collectively regarded as the paradise of primates (Choudhury, 1988a, 1995a, 1996a). Humaneprimate conflict However, the status of these species is under intense threat from habitat destruction and fragmentation primarily due to jhum Among the different primates found in southern Assam, rhesus cultivation by local tribes and deforestation for cropping and macaques, Assamese macaques, pig-tailed macaques, and stump- extension of tea plantations and others. The tea garden workers, the tailed macaques often raid crops and even homes. Because most local inhabitants, and most importantly the indigenous tribes (e.g., primates thrive in dense forest areas that are prone to jhum culti- Khasis, , Nagas, and Kukis) are totally reliant on the forest for vation, landslides, felling of trees, monoculture, etc., the habitats of their livelihood. With habitat fragmentation, the hardest hit species these primates are gradually shrinking. As macaques generally are the hoolock gibbons, Phayre’s langurs, Bengal slow lorises, and destroy the crops and even invade homes, people have to drive capped langurs. It is projected that if jhum cultivation continues, them away, often physically harming these animals in the process. the gibbons will eventually disappear from these places because Competition between primates and humans for different species of they require continuous canopy in order to thrive (Alfred and Sati, plants is quite common in all these habitats (Choudhury, 2000a, 1990; Gupta and Kumar, 1994; Mukherjee et al., 1992). 2011). Among the different RFs and the protected area of the region, only the Inner Line RF serves as habitat for all eight primates (Das Floods et al., 2011), an astounding primate diversity found nowhere else in the whole of Assam. Thus, it is necessary that southern Assam be The Barak river as well as its tributaries flow for a large distance provided with a special conservation program for these primates; through the hilly areas, and thus carry a large amount of suspended furthermore, Inner Line RF should be upgraded to “Wildlife Sanc- solutes, clay, silt, etc., which are deposited in the riverbed, owing to tuary” as soon as possible. In addition, studies on the status, dis- the construction of embankments. As a result, floods are a common tribution, ecology, threats, and conservation with emphasis on the occurrence in southern Assam, which is among the minor threats to socioeconomic conditions of the people living in the area need to be rhesus macaques. However, these monkeys are good swimmers performed. Mass awareness programs should be conducted at all and have even been seen to train their juveniles prior to the onset of sites where primates are found in high concentrations. Encroach- early showers. Flooding hardly affects the other species as ment, illegal logging, poaching, jhum cultivation, etc., should be the places they inhabit are not among the flood-affected areas. curbed. A few Phayre’s langurs may be introduced in other pro- tected areas such as the Barail WS; however, impact assessment of Other threats the same needs to be further analyzed prior to the translocation. Although there is an ample future for the primates here, if provided Domestic dogs often catch hold of and kill the juveniles of ma- with protection, there exists a high threat to their continued sur- caques and H. hoolock as these animals often set foot on land to vival (Choudhury, 1995b). Unless some conservation measures are migrate between places. With further deforestation, more gibbons undertaken, the primates will soon vanish from the place. Although and Phayre’s langurs will be forced to travel by land to move be- hoolock gibbons, Phayre’s langurs, and capped langurs enjoy tween forest patches and will fall prey to domestic dogs or other maximum protection in India, no specific venture has been taken to MK Mazumder / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7 (2014) 347e354 353 conserve them and their habitat in southern Assam (Choudhury, Chetry D, Medhi R, Biswas J, et al. 2003. A survey of non-human primates in the e 2006a; Molur et al., 2005). Because northeast India has the high- Namdapha National Park, , India. Int J Primatol 24:383 388. Choudhury A. 1983a. Plea for a new wildlife refuge in eastern India. Tigerpaper 10: est primate diversity and density in India (Choudhury, 2013), there 12e15. is a need to initiate specific steps and to designate primate- Choudhury A. 1983b. Plea for a new wildlife sanctuary in Assam. World Wildl Fund e concentrated areas as protected areas, as was previously recom- India Newsl 4:15. Choudhury A. 1986. Wildlife in North-. North-Eastern Geographer 18: mended by Choudhury (2001b). 92e101. In the past decade, a large number of organizations such as Choudhury A. 1987. Notes on the distribution and conservation of Phayre’s WWF India, Rufford Foundation, Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foun- monkey and hoolock gibbon in India. Tigerpaper 14:2e6. Choudhury A. 1988a. A primate survey in southern Assam, India. Primate Conserv 9: dation, Zoo Outreach Organisation, Conservation International 123e125. (USA), Wildlife Conservation Society (India), Rhino Foundation for Choudhury A. 1988b. Priority ratings for conservation of Indian primates. Oryx 22: Nature in NE India (India), Gibbon Conservation Alliance 89e94. Choudhury A. 1988c. Phayre’s leaf monkey (Trachypithecus phayrei) in Cachar. (Switzerland), and Wildlife Trust of India, Aaryanak (India), have J. Bombay Nat Hist Soc 85:485e492. paid sufficient attention to deciphering the status, distribution, Choudhury A. 1989a. Ecology of the Capped langur in Assam, India. Folia Primato- threats, and conservation of the primates in northeast India in logica 52 (1e2):88e92. general and Assam in particular, and have also funded a large Choudhury A. 1989b. Primates of Assam: Their Distribution, Habitat and Status. Ph.D. thesis. : . 300 pp þ maps. number of research projects. However, the region with the highest Choudhury A. 1990a. Population dynamics of hoolock gibbons in Assam, India. Am J primate diversity awaits its well-deserved due. Primatol 20:37e41. Choudhury A. 1990b. Overlapping distribution of capped langur and Phayre’s leaf monkey. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 87:8. Conclusion Choudhury A. 1990c. Primates in . Oryx 24:125. Choudhury A. 1990d. Some observations on the behaviour of capped langur of e The present article demonstrates that southern Assam, although Assam, India. Tigerpaper 17:23 26. Choudhury A. 1991. Ecology of the hoolock gibbon, a lesser in the relatively a small area, harbors as many as eight species of primates of NE India. J Trop Ecol 7:147e153. with viable populations. Moreover, Barail WS, the Inner Line RF, and Choudhury A. 1992a. The slow Loris (Nycticebus couang) in north-east India. Primate Katakhal RF are the most important abodes of these primates. Rep 34:77e83. Choudhury A. 1992b. On probable sympatric distribution of Presbytes geei and However, so many threats to the primates exist in these areas, P. pileata in Bhutan. J Ecol Soc 3:49e51. including poaching for meat, habitat destruction for a range of Choudhury A. 1993. Potential biosphere reserves in Assam (India). Tigerpaper 20: reasons, and lack of awareness among the local inhabitants. It is 2e8. Choudhury A. 1994a. Further observations on Phayre’s leaf monkey (Trachypithecus strongly recommended that the Inner Line RF and the adjoining phayrei) in Cachar, Assam. J. Bombay Nat Hist Soc 91:203e210. areas be classified as a wildlife sanctuary for the continued survival Choudhury A. 1994b. Phayre’s leaf monkey in northeast India. Tigerpaper 21:1e4. of these primates. Choudhury A. 1995a. of Southern districts of Assam. Cheetal 34:10e17. Choudhury A. 1995b. Conservation of non-human primates in Assam. Bonbani; 1995:6e9. Conflict of interest Choudhury A. 1996a. Primates in Assam e status and conservation. Tigerpaper 23: 14e17. None declared. Choudhury A. 1996b. A survey of Hoolock Gibbons (Hylobates hoolock) in southern Assam, India. Primate Rep 44:77e85. Choudhury A. 1997. Checklist of Mammals of Assam. second ed. Guwahati, India: Acknowledgments Gibbon Books and ASTEC. Choudhury A. 2000a. Primates in North-eastern India. My Green Earth 1:17e19. Choudhury A. 2000b. A survey of hoolock gibbon (Hylobates hoolock) in Dibru- The author acknowledges the Centre for Environmental Studies, Saikhowa National Park, Assam, India. Primate Rep 56:61e66. Uday Group of Institutions, Hailakandi, Assam for guidance, sup- Choudhury A. 2001a. A Systematic Review of the Mammals of North-east India with port, and valuable information. The author is a recipient of the Special Reference to Non-human Primates. D.Sc. thesis. Gauhati University. 209 pp þ 3 maps. Maulana Azad National Fellowship from the University Grants Choudhury A. 2001b. Primates of NE India: an overview of their distribution and Commission (). conservation status. ENVIS Bull Wildl Protected Areas 1:92e101. Choudhury A. 2002a. A comment on the review of ‘Primates of North-East India’ published in Journal of Bombay Natural History Society Vol. 97(3). J Bombay Nat References Hist Soc 99:290e292. Choudhury A. 2002b. Status and conservation of the stump-tailed macaque Macaca Alfred JRB, Sati JP. 1990. Survey and census of the hoolock gibbon in West , arctoides in India. Primate Rep. 63:63e72. Northeast India. Primates 31:299e306. Choudhury A. 2002c. Tail carriage in pig-tailed macaques (Macaca nemestrina). Aziz MA, Feeroz MM. 2009. Utilization of forest flora by Phayre’s Leaf-Monkey Tigerpaper 29:1e2. Trachypithecus phayrei (Primates: Cercopithecidae) in semi-evergreen forests Choudhury A. 2003a. The Mammals of Arunachal Pradesh. New Delhi, India: Regency of . J Threatened Taxa 1:257e262. Publications. 140 pp. Biswas S.1970. White-browed Gibbon (Hylobates hoolock Harlan) and Capped Langur Choudhury A. 2003b. The pig-tailed macaque Macaca nemestrina in India e status (Presbytes pileatus Blyth) as human food. J. Bombay Nat Hist Soc 36:78e80. and conservation. Primate Conserv 19:91e94. Biswas J, Das N, Borah DK, et al. 2009. Status and distribution of least known pri- Choudhury A. 2004. Vanishing habitat threatens Phayre’s leaf monkey. Rhino Found mate species: slow Loris and Capped Langur in the protected areas of Assam, North-East India Newsl J 6:32e33. India. In: Biswas J, editor. Wildlife Information Liaison Development, Zoo Outreach Choudhury A. 2005a. Amchang, Barail and Dihing- e Assam’s new wildlife Organisation and Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation Collaborative Project (No. sanctuaries. Oryx 39:124e125. PRCNE/Tecr-7). Guwahati, Assam, India: Primate Research Centre NE India. Choudhury A. 2005b. Interaction of the Pig-tailed macaque Macaca nemestrina pp. 1e39. leonina with other primates in some forests of Assam in north-east India. Bleisch B, Brockelman W, Timmins RJ, et al. 2008. Trachypithecus phayrei. In: The J. Bombay Nat Hist Soc 106:202e203. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www. Choudhury A. 2006a. The status of endangered species in northeast India. J. Bombay iucnredlist.org [Date accessed: 8 July 2014]. Nat Hist Soc 103:157e167. Boonratana R, Chalise M, Das J, et al. 2008. Macaca assamensis. The IUCN Red List of Choudhury A. 2006b. Distribution and status of hoolock gibbon, Hoolock hoolock,in Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org [Date Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and in Northeast India. Primate Con- accessed: 8 July 2014]. serv 20:79e87. Bose J. 2003. ‘Search for a Spectacle’. A Conservation Survey of Phayre’s Leaf Monkey Choudhury A. 2007a. Impact of border fencing along IndiaeBangladesh border on (Trachypithecus phayrei) in Assam and Mizoram. Occasional report no. 14. elephant movement. Gajah 26:27e30. Wildlife Trust of India. p. 20. Choudhury A. 2007b. Slow loris under threat. Rhino Found North-east India Newsl J. Brockelman W, Molur S, Geissmann T. 2008. Hoolock hoolock. In: The IUCN Red List 7:17e33. of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org [Date Choudhury A. 2008a. Primates of Bhutan and observations of Hybrid Langurs. Pri- accessed: 8 July 2014]. mate Conserv 23:65e73. 354 MK Mazumder / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7 (2014) 347e354

Choudhury A. 2008b. Ecology and Behaviour of the pigtailed macaque Macaca Kakati K. 2004. Impact of Forest Fragmentation on the Hoolock gibbon in Assam, India. nemestrina leonina in some of the forests of Assam in North-East India. Ph.D. thesis. University of Cambridge. J. Bombay Nat Hist Soc 105 (3):279e291. Katti M. 1992. Nightmare in dreamland. Hornbill 4:4e9. Choudhury A. 2009a. The distribution, status and conservation of hoolock gibbon, Kay RNB, Davies AG. 1994. Digestive physiology. In: Davies AG, Oates JG, editors. Hoolock hoolock, in , Assam, Northeast India. Primate Colobine Monkeys: Their Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Conserv 24:117e126. Cambridge University Press. pp. 229e249. Choudhury A. 2009b. The hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) in the and Mazumdar K, Soud R, Gupta A. 2011. Mammalian diversity of degraded forest districts of Assam, India. Asian Primates J 1:24e30. habitats around Assam University Campus, Silchar, India, with notes on Con- Choudhury A. 2010. Further note on some behavioural aspects of northern pig- servation status. Our Nat 9:119e127. tailed macaque Macaca nemestrina leonina. J. Bombay Nat Hist Soc 107:153e Mittermeier RA, Gil PR, Hoffmann M, et al. 2004. Hotspots Revised: Earth’s Biologi- 155. cally Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial . USA: Comex Books on Choudhury A. 2011. HumaneWildlife Conflict in Assam (North-east India) with Special Nature. Reference to Wild Elephants and Primates. Abstracts of II International Congress Molur S, Brandon-Jones D, Dittus W, et al. 2003. Status of South Asian Primates: e Problematic Wildlife e conservation and management. Genazzano, Rome, Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (C.A.M.P.) Workshop Report, 2003. Italy. pp. 63e64. Coimbatore, India: Zoo Outreach Organisation/CBSG-South Asia. viii þ 432 pp. Choudhury A. 2013. The Mammals of North-East India. first ed. Guwahati, India: Molur S, Walker S, Islam A, et al. 2005. Conservation of Gibbon Books and the Rhino Foundation for nature in NE India. (Hoolock Hoolock Hoolock) in India and Bangladesh. Population and Habitat Corbett GB, Hill JE. 1992. The Mammals of the Indomalayan Region: a Systematic Viability Assessment (PHVA) workshop report. Coimbatore, India: Zoo Outreach Review. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Organisation/CBSG-South Asia. 132pp. Das J, Biswas J, Das N, et al. 2011. Strategic plan for western Hoolock gibbon con- Mukherjee RP, Chaudhuri S, Murmu A. 1992. Status and conservation problems of servation in Assam, India. Gibbon J 6:30e41. hoolock gibbon (Hylobates hoolock) in some of its range of distribution in Das J, Molur S, Bleisch W. 2008. Trachypithecus pileatus. In: The IUCN Red List of northeastern India. Primate Rep 34:133e138. Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org [Date Myers N, Mittermeier R, Mittermeier CG, et al. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for accessed: 8 July 2014]. conservation priorities. Nature 403:853e858. Das J. 2002e2003. Hoolock gibbon: flagship species for future conservation in Nekaris KAI, Blackham GV, Nijman V. 2008. Conservation implications of low northeast India. Asian Primates 8(3e4):12e17. encounter rates of five nocturnal primate species (Nycticebus spp.) in Asia. Das J. 2003. Hoolock gibbon: flagship species for future conservation in Northeast Biodiversity & Conservation 27:971e982. India. Asian Primates 8:12e17. Nekaris KAI, Nijman V. 2007. CITES proposal highlights rarity of Asian nocturnal Groves CP. 2001. Primate . Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution primates (Lorisidae: Nycticebus). Folia Primatologica 78:211e214. Press. Radhakrishna S, Goswami AB, Sinha A. 2006. Distribution and conservation of Gupta A. 1997. Importance of forestry plantations for conservation of Phayre’s Nycticebus benghalensis in Northeastern India. Int J Primatol 27:971e982. Langur (Trachypithecus phayrei) in northeastern India. Trop Biodiversity 4:187e Richardson M, Mittermeier RA, Rylands AB, Konstant B. 2008. Macaca nemestrina. 195. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www. Gupta A. 2001. Non-human primates of India e an introduction. ENVIS Bull Wildl iucnredlist.org [Date accessed: 7 July 2014]. Protected Areas 1:1e29. Rodgers WA, Panwar HS. 1988, . Planning a Protected Area Network in India, vol. II. Gupta AK, Kumar A. 1994. Feeding ecology and conservation of the Phayre’s Leaf Dehradun: Wildlife Institute of India. 267 pp. monkey (Trachypithecus phayrei) in northeast India. Biol Conserv 69:301e306. Siddiqi NA. 1986. Gibbons (Hylobates hoolock) in the west Banugach reserved forest Gupta AK. 2000. Behaviour of Phayre’s Langur (Trachypithecus phayrei) on the death of district, Bangladesh. Tigerpaper 13:29e31. of one female. Mammalian 64:477e480. Solanki GS, Kumar A, Sharma BK. 2008. Winter food selection and diet composition Gupta AK. 2005. Conservation of hoolock gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) in northeast of capped langur (Trachypithecus pileatus) in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Trop Ecol India. Dehradun/USA: Wildlife Institute of India/United States Fish and Wildlife 49:157e166. Services. Srivastava A, Mohnot SM. 2001. Distribution, conservation status and priori ties for Htun S, Timmins RJ, Boonratana R, Das J. 2008. Macaca arctoides. The IUCN Red List of primates in Northeast India. ENVIS Bull Wildl Protected Areas 1:102e108. Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org [Date Srivastava A. 1999. Primates of Northeast India. Bikaner: Megadiversity Press. accessed: 7 July 2014]. Srivastava A. 2006. Conservation of threatened primates of Northeast India. Primate Islam M, Choudhury A, Bhattacharjee PC. 2013a. Preliminary study on population Conserv 20:107e113. status and activity budgeting of Western Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) in Streicher U, Singh M, Timmins RJ, Brockelman W. 2008. Nycticebus bengalensis. In: the Inner-Line Reserve Forest of Barak valley, Assam, India. Int J Sci Res Pub 3:1e The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www. 8. iucnredlist.org [Date accessed: 8 July 2014]. Islam M, Choudhury P, Bhattacharjee PC. 2013b. Survey and census of Hoolock Suarez SA. 2013. Diet of Phayre’s leaf-monkey in the Phu Khieo wildlife sanctuary, gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) in the Inner-Line Reserve forest and the adjoining . Asian Primates J 3:2e12. areas of Cachar district, Assam, India. Folia Primatologica (Basel) 84:170e179. Timmins RJ, Richardson M, Chhangani A, Yongcheng L. 2008. Macaca mulatta. The Johnsingh AJT. 1985. Understand, assist, protect and conserve. India Mag (January); IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www. 1985:64e71. iucnredlist.org [Date accessed: 8 July 2014]. Kakati K. 1997. Food Selection and Ranging in Hooloch gibbon (Hylobates hoolock Walker S, Molur S, Brockelman WY, et al. 2009. Western hoolock gibbon, Hoolock Harlan 1834) in Borajan Reserve Forest. M.Sc. thesis. Saurashtra University. hoolock (Harlan, 1831). In: Mittermeier RA, Wallis J, Rylands AB, et al., editors. Kakati K. 1999. The singing apes: the world of the Hoolock gibbons in the Borajan Primates in peril: the world’s 25 most endangered primates 2008e2010. Arlington: reserve forest in Assam is dying, thanks to illegal tree-felling. Frontline e India’s IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group (PSG), International Primatological Society Natl Mag 16:65e70. (IPS), and Conservation International (CI). pp. 62e64.