Mamatha MD and Hosetti BB. / Journal of Science / Vol 9 / Issue 2 / 2019 / 38-44.

e ISSN 2277 - 3290 Print ISSN 2277 - 3282

Journal of Science Applied Zoology www.journalofscience.net Research article CROP DAMAGE CAUSED BY WILD BOAR IN VILLAGES OF RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE, INDIA

M.D. Mamatha* and B.B. Hosetti

1Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Applied Zoology, Kuvempu University, Jnana Sahyadri, Shankaraghatta, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT Ranebennur Black buck Sanctuary is located in RanebennurTaluk of Haveri District, Karnataka. The sanctuary is declared vide Government of Karnataka Notification No.AFD-58-PWL -74 dated 17-6-1974 with an area of 119 Sq.km and is mainly concerned to the conservation of Black bucks and other fauna and flora. According for the present study the most of the crop damage is mainly by wild boar rather than black bucks. Day by day the conflict between wildlife and human is extending owing to increasing human population, loss of natural habitats for wildlife and gradual increasing in their population, due to successful conservation efforts of Indian government after the implication of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Wild boar (Susscrofa) is opportunistic omnivores. However, their diet varies according to field conditions and availability of the different items. Crop raiding is a major form of human wildlife conflict that not only affects livelihoods of farmers living close to the forest area. In recent years, wild boar (Susscrofa) causing enormous loss to the agricultural crops at various stages, that is mainly due to absence of predators and the increase of population and non availability of preferred dietary items. The people surrounding the sanctuary are below the poverty line and they prefer small scale crop like maize and it is the attractive crop found in that time. So wild boar caused extensive damage mainly to maize crop in Hullathi, Huniskatti, Alalgeri and Hanumapura sections of Ranebennur wildlife sanctuary. We evaluated the economic loss to the local villagers due to such human wildlife conflicts; survey and interviewed data was collected from villagers surrounding the sanctuary area and also necessary data also collected from the records of the forest department and ocular estimation of crop damage in all the forty villages of four sections and today these problems have aggravated beyond tolerable limits and resulted into direct conflict between people and wild pigs. This has also adversely affected the conservation ideals. The maximum affected section was Huniskattiand minimum affected was Hanumapura. In Hullathi section (n=303) farmers are affected, (n=370) farmers are effected in Huniskatti, (n=27) farmers affected in Hanumapura section, and (n=329) farmers affected in Alalgeri section respectively. Compensation given by the forest department, and detailed study beyond crop raiding and how to overcome from crop raiding was discussed. To minimize the conflicts between farmers and the management of protected areas, it is suggested that the inexpensive, volunteer-based population control program could be enhanced by incorporating stalking and mobile electric fences and changing of crop alternatively. This paper discuss the interactions between the wild boar and crops damages, compensation, preventing methods employed, actions which should be taken by the forest department to minimize the human-animal conflicts in the area.

Keywords: Wild boar, Crop damage, Ranebennur blackbuck sanctuary, Agriculture, villages, Wild-human conflict.

Access this article online Corresponding Author Home page: Quick Response code M.D. Mamatha http://journalofscience.net// Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Applied Zoology, Kuvempu University, JnanaSahyadri, Shankaraghatta, DOI: Shivamogga, Karnataka. http://dx.doi.org/10.21276/jos.2019.9.2.1 Email:- [email protected] Received:25.02.19 Revised:01.03.19 Accepted:08.03.19 Access this article online

Page | 38

Mamatha MD and Hosetti BB. / Journal of Science / Vol 9 / Issue 2 / 2019 / 38-44.

INTRODUCTION [17-19]. These confrontations are always detrimental for The wild boar (Susscrofa) is one of the most the wellbeing of the animals in the area on long run. widely distributed large mammals in the area and also Wild boar damages agricultural crops and distributed in large numbers in North Africa, Europe and grassland by rooting out or by directly feeding on crops, Asia [1]. Wild boar locally known as Kaduhandi. Wild such as maize [20-23]. It has always been associated itself boars are found in good numbers in the Ranebennur with man and successfully utilizes the human altered Wildlife Sanctuary, and are habituated to crop raiding due landscapes [24-25]. However, there is little or no to their acute sense of smell and nocturnal feeding habit. scientific evidence of the effectiveness of these The wild boar has an elongated face with an techniques, even though wildlife-caused damages can abruptly truncated mobile snout that ends in a flat disk cause significant economic harm, lead to farm failures, containing the nostrils. The head is very strong and used and the emigration of farmers [26]. for fighting, digging and bulldozing vegetation. Wild The high damage to maize may be due to it being boars are omnivorous, living on crops, roots, tubers and the only attractive crop in the area at the time. Maize is carrion [2]. They feed in the early morning and late rich in carbohydrates, while being very low in fat, Wild evening or at night. They are more destructive to crops boar are monogastric hence require high energy food. than any other animals. Wild boars live in groups of 6-23 Damages to crops have led to the development of animals. different avoidance techniques (culling, supplemental The wild boar is relatively large mammal that feeding, and electrical fencing) and some evaluations of has one of the broadest geographic distributions [3]. The these techniques [27]. species can occupy a wide range of habitats, including Mature crops were highly susceptible to damage semi deserts, wetlands, high mountain environments, and by pigs. Damage to crops was reported to increase when forest ecosystems [4]. there was less natural food available in forest, and artificial feeding of wild pigs could reduce crop damage Scientific Classification [28]. Kingdom Animalia There is no report or survey of the problem in Phylum Chordata this area. Hence hitherto study was conducted to prepare a Class Mammalia list damaged crops of all surrounding villages around the Order Artiodactyla Ranebennur blackbuck sanctuary and to evaluate Family Suidae mitigation measures. Subfamily Suinae Genus Sus MATERIALS AND METHODS Species Susscrofa Study area Ranebennur blackbuck sanctuary is situated Wild boar is a major problematic species in the towards north –east of Pune Bangalore National Highway agricultural crops in many parts of India. Conflicts No 4 at Ranebennur north east of Ranebennur. It is between wildlife and human interests are a matter of situated between 14°-34-00’’ to 14°- 0-46 -00’’ Latitude concern worldwide [5] as wildlife populations expand north between 75°-30-08’’ to75°-47-21’’ Longitude east. into anthropic environments with increasing human The topography of the Study area ranging from 531M to populations. Human wildlife conflict is a continuous issue 762M above MSL and Temperature varies from 25°C IN and crop damage by wild boar is one of the major Winter and, 40°C in the summer. March-April are the problems in surrounding villages of Ranebennur hottest months. Average rainfall is 600-620mm. The soil blackbuck sanctuary with increasing population and structure is ''Gneisses'' Shisty and Granite of Archean area pressure on forest areas, human –wildlife interaction and and Deccan trap rocks of tertiary era (Jagadish Chandra resultant conflict is also increasing [6]. 1974). Since the area coming under Tungabhadra River There is paucity of information on ecology and Valley Project. The area of the Sanctuary is 119Sq.Kms. conflict aspects of wild pigs from Indian sub-continent. It spreads over in four sections, Hullathi, Huniskatti, The available information is of general nature and Hanumapura, Alalgere. fragmentary [7-16]. In the western ghats of Maharashtra Hullathi section: The topography ranging from state, man and wild pigs interaction has been briefly 488.62m-488.27m .It is situated between Longitude E- studied by Ahmad (1991). 075⁰ 39’ 58.24’’ and N-14⁰ 38’ 58.05’’. Latitude E-075⁰ Fragmentation of forests, expansion of 39' 58.24'' and N-14⁰ 38'58.05''. 14.87 Sq.km in hullathi agricultural fields and human settlement not only section considered as a ‘CORE AREA’ ON 21-10-1982. destroyed the habitat of wild animals but also exposed Huniskatti section: The topography ranging from 596 m. animals to people which ultimately lead to confrontation It is situated between N14°37'17.91'' E-75° 41' 19.60'' Longitude. Latitude N-14° 37' 36.03'' and E-75° 40' 52.01''

Page | 39

Mamatha MD and Hosetti BB. / Journal of Science / Vol 9 / Issue 2 / 2019 / 38-44.

Hanumapura section: The topography ranging sanctuary. In order to gather data on crop depredation by from 595.35 m-609.87 m. It is situated between wild boar interviewed the villagers to collect information Longitude N-14° 44' 05.54'' and E-75° 3' 16.54''. Latitude pertaining to the amount of agricultural land owned or N-14° 45' 06.73'' and E-75° 3449.54'' tilled by a family. Their estimated crop production and Alalgere section: The topography ranging from 617.19 m- their estimated annual crop losses to wild boar 659.31m.Longitude N-14°44' 41.41'' and Latitude N- depredation and also got the details of compensation 14°44 22.22’’ and E-75° 31 35.33'' received for crop loss. Although interviewers could not recall the exact time, date, they reported the general time Sampling methods (e.g. Wet/Dry season) and wild boar crop raided at night 1. Survey was conducted primarily on these census time. Survey was conducted on 40 Villages to get the conducted during 2016-2017 across all villages which information on nature and extent of crop damage and comes under this Sections Hullathi, Huniskatti, Alalgeri information on human animal conflict was collected by and Hanumapura sections of Ranebennur blackbuck Forest Department.

Table 1. Detailed account on crop damage in Hullathi section No. of Total Total Crop Compensation paid by Name of the villages Farmers Percentage Land Area loss in acres the Forest Department. affected Hullathi 2 19.19 4 4,200 0.60% HullathiTanda 3 9.74 38,05 8.07 0.90% Medleri 48 173.09 652.73 207,560 16% MedleriTanda 7 22.44 78.72 26,260 2% Kudrihala 23 88.81 237.02 82,450 7% Heeladahalli 9 39.72 129.69 46,870 2% Padmavatipura 33 112.9 442.47 101,810 11% Ankasapur 16 47.11 194 62,710 5% AnkasapurTanda 5 14.99 54.91 12,030 2% Maidur 8 68.72 202.78 95,450 6% Yattinahalli 2 8.4 19.19 4,200 0.60% Gangapura 147 450.94 1789.11 554,640 47% Total 303 1045.26 3857.86 1,206,250 100% 96 acre 4gunta

Table 2. Detailed account on crop damage in Huniskatti section. No. of Total Compensation given by Name of the villages Farmers Land Total Crop loss land Percentage the Forest Department. Effected Area Hunsikatti 123 308.79 1298.39 348,270 33% HunsikattiTanda 18 57.99 220.3 51,260 5% SiddapuraTanda 6 19.01 61 16,900 2% Yakalasapura 15 44.36 239.72 74,320 4% Govindabadavane 24 84.25 268.13 66,680 7% BasalikattiTanda 34 131.9 432.15 106,920 9% Rahutanakatti 26 102.97 339.61 128,650 7% Airani 2 5.1 7.53 9,820 0.50% Karur 19 56.83 225.63 77,380 5% Chalageri 9 21.92 94.52 37,160 2.50% Aremallapur 78 280.74 942.57 367,000 21% KamadodTanda 4 23.06 93.98 23,500 1% Gangajalatanda 12 38.45 146.76 40,580 3% Total 370 1175.37 4370.29 1,018,140 100% 109 acre 3 gunta

Page | 40

Mamatha MD and Hosetti BB. / Journal of Science / Vol 9 / Issue 2 / 2019 / 38-44.

Table 3. Detailed account on crop damage in Alalgere section No. of Compensation Total Land Total Crop loss Name of the villages Farmers given by the Forest Percentage Area land Effected Department. Kalledevaru 119 466.83 1179.47 420,455 36% Seva Nagar 88 288.52 786.09 247,512 27% Chatra 38 72.7 252.14 118,778 12% Alalagere 30 126.29 340.31 110,233 9% KakolTanda 20 49.14 138.74 36,598 6% Budapanahalli 23 88.81 205.37 59,978 7% Arabagonda 4 13.11 34.79 13,781 1% Motebennur 2 5.4 19.38 8,480 0.60% Bhardi 5 21.04 28.39 11,200 1.50% Total 329 1131.84 2984.68 1,027,015 100% 74 acre 6 gunta

Table 3: Detailed account on crop damage in Hanumapura section Compensation No. of Farmers Total Land Total Crop loss given by the Forest Name of the villages Effected Area land Department. Percentage Hanumapur 14 44.25 126.4 35,900 51 HanumapurTanda 5 13.21 44.93 12,900 19 Kurukunda 1 2.2 0.08 3,500 4 Guddaguddapur 1 5 11.44 5,050 4 Y. T. Honnatti 6 13.65 62.52 17,460 22 Total 27 78.31 245.37 74,810 100 6 acre 13 gunta

Page | 41

Mamatha MD and Hosetti BB. / Journal of Science / Vol 9 / Issue 2 / 2019 / 38-44.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In Hanumapura n=27, total crop area 78 acres 51 The observations revealed that wild boar gunta, total crop loss area 6 acres 13 gunta, Compensation populations in the region have been increasing steadily. paid was 74,810 (Seventy four thousand eight hundred ten The human-animal conflict increased maximum mainly Rupees). Hanumapura was most affected village and because of crop damage by the wild boar rather than Kurkunda and Guddaguddapura least affected. The Black Buck’s. Wild boar damage is more pronounced in following is the statement of payment made for crop crop fields and the crop fields are in close proximity with compensation during 2016-2017. At present Government adjoining forests areas. paying heavy compensation to the farmers. In the Hullathi section n=303 farmers are affected, total crop area is 1,045 acres, total crop loss area CONCLUSION. was 96 acres and the compensation paid was 12,06,250 In the entire sanctuary area the wild boar (Twelve lakh six thousand two hundred fifty Rupees) by (Susscrofa) is a major vertebrate pest affecting the department. Gangapura was maximum affected and agricultural production. Though omnivorous, these are Hullathi, Hullathitanda, and Yattinahalli village were least largely vegetarian in diet and consume a wide variety of affected crop seeds, fruits, young leaves, tubers and succulent In Huniskatti n= 370 farmers are affected, total stems. The area still provides some potential habitats for crop area 1175 acre, and total crop loss area 109 acres. the increasing population of wild boar. Total compensation given to section was 10, 18, 140 (Ten It is needed obtain information systematically in lakh eighteen thousand one hundred fourty order to study human-animal conflict and its management. Rupees).Huniskatti village is most affected and Airani The human -animal conflict raised to maximum. The least affected. most of the villages around the sanctuary consists of In the Alalgeri section total no of affected kuruba (Shepherds) and Lambani (Tribal) and other castes farmers n=329, total crop area 1131 acres, 84 gunta, total their main profession is agriculture, sheep breeding and crop loss area was 74 acres. The compensation 10,27, 015 animal husbandry which is related to grazing. Presently, (Ten lakh Twenty seven thousand fifteen Rupees) was the entire sanctuary area is now covered with Eucalyptus discussed. Kalledevaru was maximum affected village as the top canopy and Dodoniaviscosa, Accaciasundra in and Motebennur is minimum affected. the middle canopy, while the ground level grass is

Page | 42

Mamatha MD and Hosetti BB. / Journal of Science / Vol 9 / Issue 2 / 2019 / 38-44.

missing day by day. This become good habitat to wild farmers is to construct fences out of the thorny twigs and boar, which is active in reproduction and it can withstand branches of Prosopisjuliflora, Acacia nilotica, Ziziphusnu the seasonal variations, more over there is no predators mmularia, Z. mauritiana and Euphorbia caducifolia. for the wild boar in the sanctuary. This led to rise in However, despite all these crop protection measures, wild population density and made them to move to the adjacent boars still manage to invade the crop fields .(Chhangani agricultural fields in all the directions of sanctuary. and Mohnot, 2004). So changing of crop patterens is Though a series of measures are taken by the forest necessary to avoid crop raiding. department, yet it needs the improvement in achieving the objectives set for management plan. A). Management actions should be adopted by the The wild boar damage compensation payment is Farmers increasing steadily and becoming major share holder in All the farmers around the protected area to be the Protected Area Management budget. This also caused aware of the importance of wildlife conservation and they a lot of correspondence and conflict with the public should grow crops alternatively. In order to avoid causing break in development work. At this juncture, it economic loss, farmers should apply a range of protective may not be a wrong thing if a cull out of wild boar is in a measures which include manual guarding various types of controlled way. To manage the healthy sanctuary, it is to fences trenches and other devices. Traditional fences be considered the wild boar as some vermin in this area or should be made using wooden poles and thorny branches therwise, a strong predator to be introduced which can looped from nearby agricultural field causing substantial hunt the wild boar (Gopal Singh, 2015). The rich mainly damage to the land. Fixing of used colored sarees as in carbohydrates high damage to maize may be due to it border around the crop will make wild boars to assume being the only attractive crop in the area at the time. human presence in the area. Use of alarming calls, plastic Maize is rich in carbohydrates, while being very low in covers sounds make wild boar frighten in the crop land. fat, Wild boar are monogastric hence require high energy food. Wild boars begin consuming maize, where maize is Acknowledgment most often grown by medium- and small-scale farmers. We are thankful to ACF, RFO and Deputy Cultivation practices in these areas are generally less Forester for permitting to undertake the study in sophisticated; seed and plant quality is much lower; pests Ranebennur Blackbuck Sanctuary and providing facilities and diseases are much less under control; and cultivation during the study period. MDM is also thankful to a techniques are by far less advanced or are even very interviewed peoples of all villages and for their well traditional. Generally, the farmers located right at the cooperation. My sincere thankful to authorities to sanctuary’s boundary wall and those with poor crop Chairman Dept. Of Applied Zoology, Kuvempu protection strategies were at most risk and experienced university Shankarghatta for support. frequent losses. Another method commonly used by

REFERENCES 1. Heptner VG, Nasimovic AA, and Bannikov AG. Die Saugetiere der Sowjetunion Band I Parrhufer und Unparhufer VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, DDR, 1966, 939. 2. Prater SH. The book of Indian animals, 3rded, Bombay Natural Historty India, 1980. 3. Groves CP. Suid and dicotylidsystematic today. In: Barrett RG, Spitz F (eds) Biology of suidae. IRGM, Grenoble, 1991, 20–30. 4. d’ Huart JP. Habitat utilization of old world wild pigs. In: Barrett RG, Spitz F (eds) Biology of suidae. IRGM, Grenoble, 1991, 30–48. 5. Woodroffe R., Thirgood S &Rabinowitz A. People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. 6. Zubri C and Switzer D. Crop raiding primates: Searching for alternative human ways to resolve conflict with farmers in Africa. People and Wildlife Initiative. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University, 2001. 7. Mason JM. Food of wild boar. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc, 8(3), 1893, 447. 8. Brander DAA. Wild Animals in Central India. Natraj Publication, Dehradun, India, 1923. 9. Morris RC. Partial disappearance of wild boar Suscristatus. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 34(1), 1929, 245. 10. Schaller GB. The Deer and the Tiger. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1967. 11. Santiapillai C and Chambers MR. Aspects of population dynamics of the wild pigs (Susscrofa) in the Ruhana National park, Sri Lanka. Spixiana (Muenchn), 3(3), 1982, 239-250. 12. TIwari SK. Zoo Geography of India and South-east Asia. CBS Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 1985. 13. Shafi MM and Khokhar AR. Some observations on wild pigs (Suscristatus) and its control in sugarcane areas of Punjab, Pakistan. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 3(1), 1986, 63-67.

Page | 43

Mamatha MD and Hosetti BB. / Journal of Science / Vol 9 / Issue 2 / 2019 / 38-44.

14. Ramachandran KK, Nair PVK and Esa PS. Ecology of larger mammals of Periyar wildlife sanctuary. J.Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 83(3), 1986, 505-524. 15. Ahmed BHM and Saman T. Selection of new habitats by wild boar (Suscristatus, Wagner) due to human interaction in the Radhanagari wildlife sanctuary from the Western Ghats. Proc. Nat. Symp. Animal Behavoiur, 1989, 184-187. 16. Ahmed BHM. Man and wild pigs (Suscristatus) interaction from the Western Ghats of south Maharashtra. Ph.D. thesis, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, 1991. 17. Akhtar N. Sloth bear habitat use in a disturbed and unprotected area of Madhya Pradesh, India. Ursus, 15(2), 2004, 203- 211. 18. Akhtar N. Habitat use, ranging pattern and management of Sloth bear (Melursusursinus) in North Bilaspur Forest Division, Madhya Pradesh.Ph.D. Thesis, Wildlife Institute of India Dehra Dun, 2004. 19. Chauhan NFS and Savarkar VB. Problems of over-abundant populations of ‘’Nilgai’’ and ‘’Blackbuck’ ’in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh and their management. Indian Forester, 115(7), 1989, 488-493. 20. Genov, P. Significance of natural biocenoses and agrocenosesa the source of food for wild pigs (Susscrofa). Ekol.Pol, 29, 1981, 117-186. 21. Mackin R. Dynamics of damage caused by wild pigs to different agricultural crops. ActaTheriologica, 15(27), 1970, 447-458. 22. Dardaillon M. Seasonal variations in habitat selection and spatial distribution of wild boar in the Camargue, Southern France. Behavioural Processes, 13, 1986, 251-268. 23. Schley L and Roper TJ. Diet of wild boar in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Rev, 33, 2003, 43-56. 24. Erkinaro E. Occurrence and spread of wild pigs (Susscrofa) in the eastern Finno Scandia. Memoranda, 58, 1982, 39-47. 25. Fadeev EV. The ecology of the wild pigs in the central Russian SPSR. Biol. Poelroned, 28(5), 1975, 20-28. 26. Treves A. The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife around protected areas. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Brown PJ et al. (eds.), Wildlife and society: The science of human dimensions. Island Press, Washington, D.C, 2008, 262–278. 27. Geisser H and Heinz-Ulrich R. Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars. J Wildl Manage 68, 2004, 531–543. 28. Andrejewski R, Jezierski, W. Management of wild pigs population and its effect on commercial land. ActaTheriologica, 23, 1978, 309-339.

Cite this article: Mamatha MD and Hosetti BB. Crop Damage Caused By Wild Boar In Villages Of Ranebennur, Haveri District, Karnataka State, India.. Journal of Science, 2019;9(2):38-44. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21276/jos.2019.9.2.1

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Page | 44