Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 2(2): 1-5 (2018) Archive of SID by Arak University, Iran (http://jwb.araku.ac.ir/) DOI: 10.22120/jwb.2018.30485 Research Article

Do Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) damage the unpalatable crops during conflict with human? A case study from Rampur village of District in

Introduction 1 Mohammad Mazbah Uddin *, M. Farid The distribution of macaques is in the tropical 2 Ahsan and subtropical areas of the world including 1*College of the Environment and Ecology, deciduous, rain and conifer forests, mangrove Xiamen University, Xiamen- 361100, Fujian, swamps, temples and human settlements. China However, Rhesus monkeys are distributed 2Department of Zoology, University of among forest and non-forest areas in , Chittagong - 4331, Bangladesh Bangladesh and in urban areas; they are mostly *email: [email protected] found in near to the Hindu community’s areas (Hasan et al. 2013). Bangladesh is a developing Received: 5 January 2018 / Revised: 5 March 2018 / Accepted: 9 country with increasing human population and March 2018 / Published online: 10 March 2018. Ministry of has greater demand for natural resources. As a Sciences, Research and Technology, Arak University, Iran. result, natural habitat has intense competition Abstract with food with other animals resulting in Human-Rhesus monkey conflicts were studied various conflicts. Human non-human primates in the Rampur Village of Narsingdi District in (there after primates) conflict are increasing to Bangladesh. The village supports good the developing counties than developed homestead vegetations where three troops of countries due to greater biodiversity and lack of Rhesus monkeys are living. Monkeys prevention measures such as farm fences, consumed plant parts of 10 species. Betel leaf livestock guard (Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay 2016). vein (Piper betel), an unpalatable plant species In addition, behavioral adaptability of the of the monkey, was greatly damaged by them Rhesus monkeys facilitates to invading human in this area but it is the main economic source settlement, and as a result conflicts occur. for the local people. As a result, it is the major However, the interaction between the primates issue for human-Rhesus conflicts in this area. and people is referred to as human primate’s Local people are aggressive towards monkeys conflict, which has negative impact on the for damaging their major economic crops. For resources, habitats of both primates and people mitigating conflicts with monkeys, 60% people (Hill et al. 2002, Hockings and Humle 2009, opined to strike them with stick and 30% Khatun et al. 2013, Ahsan and Uddin 2014). preached to throw stones towards them. From Crop raiding primates is the example of this study, it indicates that unpalatable crops human- primates’ conflicts, where most of the are not only damaged by Rhesus monkeys but local people are subsistence farmers (Hill also monkeys are injured during human-Rhesus 1988). Crop raiding is a major issue for human- conflicts. Scarcity of food and human primates’ conflict and conservation of primates aggression influence monkeys to invade and (Hill 1988, Ahsan and Uddin 2014). Human damage unpalatable crop of human settlements primates’ conflicts are increasing because of areas. conversion to agricultural lands to human settlements as a result primate invade human

Keywords: Human-Rhesus monkey conflict, settlement for food and damage crops that are unpalatable crops, Bangladesh. mostly eaten by them. In some cases, primates especially baboons damage unpalatable crops www.SID.ir 2 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 2(2): 1-5 (2018) Archive of SID that they don’t eat but destroy as their own settlement areas during conflict with local entertainment (Hill and Webber 2010). people in Rampur village of Monohardi But literature survey reveals that no published at Narsingdi district in Bangladesh. paper is available on the damage of unpalatable The major objectives of this study were to: 1) crops by macaques during human-primates investigate crop damage by Rhesus monkeys conflict. The local people perceptions are and their damage preferences 2) investigate important factor during human primates’ human aggression towards primates due to crop conflicts. damages. Local people are more aggressive towards primates when they find economic loss due to Material and methods crop damage by primates (Beisner et al. 2015). Study area Palatable and unpalatable crops are damaged The study was conducted at the Rampur village by primates and it depends on the availability under the in Narsingdi and scarcity of food in the areas. Also, the district (24o14.226’ N and 90o43.250’ E) of aggressive human behaviors influence the Bangladesh (Figure 1). Monkeys are mainly primates to damage unpalatable crops (Khatun living in Rampur village but also frequently et al. 2013, Beisner et al. 2015). In Bangladesh, move surrounding villages of Rampur. These conflict between human and primates are villages are mainly covered with homestead increasing due to increased population and vegetations and bamboo patches. Most of the primates tried to coexist with human settlement people of these villages are farmers and their areas. So human primates’ conflicts are main economic income and livelihood depend increasing; however, there is no published on the cultivation of banana, rice and betel leaf. paper except Ahsan and Uddin (2014) on According to the census report of 2011, the Rhesus monkeys and Khatun et al. (2013) on density of population of this Upazila is 1176 common langur. The present study reveals the person /km2 (B.B.S. 2011). crop damage by Rhesus monkey of the human

Figure 2. Geographical map of the study area

www.SID.ir 3 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 2(2): 1-5 (2018) Archive of SID Data collections Rhesus monkeys including leaves of 37 The data of damaged crops by monkeys and species, flowers of 27 species, buds of 20 their food preferences were collected through species, stipules of 6 species, juice of 4 species, asking question to the local people, taking petioles (Pulvinus) of 3 species, shoot and seed picture of damaged crops, field study through of 1 species (Ahsan 1984). However, during binoculars and following monkeys’ movement human Rhesus conflict the damaged crops are mainly their food. Table 1, shows that damaged in their home range areas. In addition, we crops is mainly their food during human interviewed 40 people with self-prepared Rhesus monkey conflict around the world. But questionnaire (Appendix 1) for the collection in Rampur village the damaged crops were not of human -primate conflict date and their their consumed food (Figure 2). perception towards monkeys. The interviewees were household head, the wife of the household head or with resident adults (>18 years), who were willing to participate in an interview as a representative of the family. Each interview was conducted in the . It took 10-20 minutes to complete one questionnaire.

Results and Discussion Damaged crops and preferences The major damaged crop fields by the Rhesus macaques in the study area were: (1) betel leaf fields (Piper betle), (2) paddy fields (Oryza sativa), (3) inflorescence of banana (Musa spp.), (4) inflorescence of bamboos (Bambusa vulgaris), (5) brinjal fields (Solanum melongena), (6) potato fields (Solanum tuberosum), (7) jackfruit (Artocapus heterophyllus) and (8) inflorescence of pumpkins (Cucurbita maxima).Thus Rhesus monkeys are largely vegetarian and their diet includes leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds, grasses Figure 2. Unpalatable crops (betel leaf) etc. Except betel leaf, all other damaged crops damaged by Rhesus monkeys in the study are their major food in this area. In addition, 40 area. different plant species were consumed by

Table 1. Damaged crops by monkeys around the world during human monkey’s conflict

Country Species Damaged crops Reference Miah et al. 2001, Aziz and Bangladesh Rhesus monkey Mature Jackfruit, Pineapples and bananas Feeroz 2007 Sweet potato, corn, bananas, mangoes and Uganda Vervet monkey Saj et al. 2015 peanuts. Indonesia Rhesus monkey Coco plantation, sweet potato and maize. Riley and Fuentes 2011 India Rhesus monkey Mango, rice field and bananas. Devi and Saikia 2008 Potato, maize, cereals Bulk wheat and Sri Lanka Rhesus monkey Regmi et al. 2013 millet

www.SID.ir 4 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 2(2): 1-5 (2018) Archive of SID It indicates that Rhesus monkeys damage are more tolerant to primates; they consider unpalatable crops during conflict. Though primates as a religious God. previous study reported that unpalatable crop In addition, fruiting season and provision of was only damaged by baboons (Hill and food also changed the aggression intensity as Webber 2010). well as crop damages intensity of primates and This is due to human aggression and scarcities humans vice versa (Khatun et al. 2013, Beisner of food are main reason for damaging palatable et al. 2015). and unpalatable crops during conflict with human. Local people perceptions towards Conclusion primates are also responsible for crop damage From this study, it is concluded that Rhesus preference and people are more aggressive monkeys damage unpalatable crops during when primates do economic loss to the local conflict with humans. In addition, human people (Khatun et al. 2013, Beisner et al. aggressive behaviors have influence on 2015). In addition, crop damage also depends monkeys to damage unpalatable crops. on the living distance between primates from Availability and scarcity of food also influence the crops field and size of the edge crop fields to damage unpalatable crops. Overall, to (Regmi et al. 2013). As Rhesus monkeys are mitigate conflict and conserve this monkey in living in a small village within the human the human settlement areas, provision food in a settlement areas resulting lesser edge than the regular basis and imposing awareness program large forest areas which also influence in the local area. monkeys to damage main economic crops in the studied area. Acknowledgements From the local people opinion, 80% of the Authors would like to thank department of respondents claimed that betel leaf vines were Zoology, University of Chittagong for their the highest damaged plants by moneys. In support during field data collection. Authors addition, 60% affirmed banana as the second would like to give thanks to anonymous highest and 50% said vegetables was the lowest reviewers for their comments to improve this damage crops by moneys. manuscript.

Human aggressions toward primates References In the study area, local people are highly Ahsan M.F., Uddin M.M. 2014. Human- aggressive towards primates, the survey Rhesus Monkey conflict at Rampur Village indicates that 60% local people stroked with under Monohardi Upazila in Narsingdi stick to primates during the interaction with them especially when the primates are in their District of Bangladesh. Journal of crop fields or damaging crops. In addition, 30% Threatened Taxa 6(6): 5905–5908. people claimed that throwing stone were also Ahsan M.F. 1984. Study of primates in elicited behavior from local people towards Bangladesh: determination of population primates when they are roaming around houses status and distribution of non- human of the local people for stealing food. primates in Bangladesh with emphasis on Furthermore, facial feared expression also applied towards primates when primates are far rhesus monkey. University of : away from the houses of local people. The Department of Zoology. pp. 162. human aggressions towards primates are relied Aziz M.A., Feeroz M.M. 2007. Damage to on the potential economic loss by primates and agricultural crops by mammalian fauna at primates’ aggression is influenced by the the fringes of Lawachara National Park. human behavior (Beisner et al. 2015). Tiger paper 34(2): 29-32. Therefore, less land holding farmers are more B.B.S. 2011. Population census data. aggressive towards primates as their perceptions to primates is not conservative http://www.bbs.gov.bd/site/page/2888a55d- (Khatun et al. 2013). However, Hindu people d686-4736-bad0-54b70462afda/District- www.SID.ir 5 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 2(2): 1-5 (2018) Archive of SID Statistics. Downloaded on 16 September Guidelines for the Prevention and 2107. Mitigation of Conflict Between Humans Beisner B.A., Heagerty A., Seil S.K., and Great Apes. Gland, Switzerland: Balasubramaniam K.N., Atwill E.R., Gupta IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group B.K., Tyagi P.C., Chauhan N.P., Bonal (PSG). pp. 41. B.S., Sinha P.R., McCowan B. 2015. Khatun U.H., Ahsan M.F., Roskaft E. 2013. Human–wildlife conflict: proximate Local people’s perceptions of crop damage predictors of aggression between humans by Common Langurs (Semnopithecus and rhesus macaques in India. American entellus) and human-langur conflict in journal of physical anthropology Keshabpur of Bangladesh. Environment 156(2):286-294. and Natural Resources Research 3(1): 111– Devi O.S., Saikia P.K. 2008. Human-monkey 126. conflict: a case study at Gauhati University Miah D.M., Rahman L.M., Ahsan M.F. 2001. Campus, Jalukbari, Kamrup, Assam. Zoos Assessment of crop damage by wildlife in Print Journal 23(2): 15-18. Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Hasan M.K., Aziz M.A., Alam S.R., Tiger paper 28(4): 22-28. Kawamoto Y., Engel L.J., Kyes R.C., Regmi G.R., Nekaris K.A.I., Kandel K., Akhtar S., Begum S., Feeroz M.M. 2013. Nijman V. 2013. Crop-raiding macaques: Distribution of Rhesus Macaques (Macaca predictions, patterns and perceptions from mulatta) in Bangladesh: inter-population Langtang National Park, Nepal. variation in group size and composition. Endangered Species Research 20(3): 217- Primate Conservation 26(1):125-132. 226. Hill C. M. 1998. Conflicting attitudes towards Riley E.P., Fuentes A. 2011. Conserving elephants around the Budongo Forest social–ecological systems in indonesia: Reserce, Uganda. Environmental human–nonhuman primate interconnections Conservation 25(3): 218-228. in Bali and Sulawesi. American Journal of Hill C.M., Webber A. D. 2010. Perceptions of Primatology 73(1): 62–74. nonhuman primates in human–wildlife Saj T. L., Sicotte P., Paterson J. D. 2015. The conflict scenarios. American journal of conflict between vervet monkeys and primatology 72(10): 919-924. farmers at the forest edge in entebbe, Hill C., Osborn F., Plumptre A.J. 2002. uganda. African Journal of Ecology 39(2): Human–wildlife conflict: identifying the 195-199. problem and possible solutions, vol.1, Seoraj-Pillai N., Pillay N. 2016. A meta- Albertine Rift Technical Report Series., analysis of human–wildlife conflict: South New York: Wildlife Conservation Society. African and global perspectives. Hockings K., Humle T. 2009. Best Practice Sustainability 9(1): 34.

www.SID.ir