The Journal of Threatened Taxa (JoTT) is dedicated to building evidence for conservaton globally by publishing peer-reviewed artcles OPEN ACCESS online every month at a reasonably rapid rate at www.threatenedtaxa.org. All artcles published in JoTT are registered under Creatve Commons Atributon 4.0 Internatonal License unless otherwise mentoned. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproducton, and distributon of artcles in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publicaton.

Journal of Threatened Taxa Building evidence for conservaton globally www.threatenedtaxa.org ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) Communication

Habitat selection of Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus leucogaster (Mammalia: Artiodactyla: Moschidae) with respect to biophysical attributes in Annapurna Conservation Area of Nepal

Bijaya Neupane, Nar Bahadur Chhetri & Bijaya Dhami

26 June 2021 | Vol. 13 | No. 7 | Pages: 18703–18712 DOI: 10.11609/jot.6725.13.7.18703-18712

For Focus, Scope, Aims, and Policies, visit htps://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/aims_scope For Artcle Submission Guidelines, visit htps://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/about/submissions For Policies against Scientfc Misconduct, visit htps://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/policies_various For reprints, contact

The opinions expressed by the authors do not refect the views of the Journal of Threatened Taxa, Wildlife Informaton Liaison Development Society, Zoo Outreach Organizaton, or any of the partners. The journal, the publisher, the host, and the part- Publisher & Host ners are not responsible for the accuracy of the politcal boundaries shown in the maps by the authors.

Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712 ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) OPEN ACCESS htps://doi.org/10.11609/jot.6725.13.7.18703-18712

#6725 | Received 18 September 2020 | Final received 06 June 2021 | Finally accepted 09 June 2021 COMMUNICATION

Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus leucogaster (Mammalia: Artodactyla: Moschidae) with respect to biophysical atributes in Annapurna Conservaton Area of Nepal

Bijaya Neupane 1 , Nar Bahadur Chhetri 2 & Bijaya Dhami 3

1,3 Tribhuvan University, Insttute of Forestry, Pokhara Campus, Kaski, 33700, Nepal. 2 Division Forest Ofce, Myagdi, 33200 Nepal. 1 [email protected] (corresponding author), 2 [email protected], 3 [email protected]

Abstract: Himalayan or White-bellied Musk Deer Moschus leucogaster, an IUCN indexed endangered species, is distributed in isolated pockets in the Himalaya. The deer populaton is decreasing owing to several pressures that include habitat loss and fragmentaton, and poaching. It is essental to identfy preferred habitat characteristcs to support appropriate management strategies for conserving this endangered species. This study was carried out in the Nysheang basin of Annapurna Conservaton Area of Nepal to identfy habitats preferred by the musk deer. Habitat feld parameters were collected using transect surveys. To analyze vegetaton use and availability, nested quadrate plots size 20 m2 were established. Ivlev’s electvity index (IV) (-1 to +1) was employed to determine habitat preference, and one-way ANOVA (F) and chi-square tests (χ2) were used to examine diferent habitat parameters. Similarly, the importance value index (IVI) of the vegetaton was calculated. Our results showed that the Himalayan Musk Deer strongly preferred habitats at 3601–3800 m alttude (IV= 0.3, F= 4.58, P <0.05), with 21–30º slope (IV= 0.2, F= 4.14, P <0.05), 26–50 % crown cover (IV= 0.25, F= 4.45, P <0.05), 26–50 % ground cover (IV= 0.15, F= 4.13, P <0.05), and mixed forest (IV= 0.29, χ2= 28.82, df= 3, p <0.001). Among the trees, Abies spectabilis (IVI= 74.87, IV= 0.035) and Rhododendron arboretum (IVI= 55.41, IV= 0.02) were the most preferred, while Rhododendron lepidotum, Cassiope fastgiata (IV= 0.35) and Berberis aristata (IV= 0.25) were the most preferred shrubs, and Primula dentculata (IV= 0.87) and Primula rotundifolia (IV= 0.31) were the most preferred herbs. These preferred habitat conditons should be maintained and conserved to sustain a viable populaton of deer in the study area. Further studies will be required to assess the efects of climate change on habitat suitability.

Keywords: Climate change, conservaton, habitat suitability, Nysheang Valley, White-bellied Musk Deer.

Nepali ;+lIfKt: lxdfnog cyjf XjfO{6 ljN8 s:t'/L d[u Moschus leucogaster, IUCN df ;'lrt nfkf]Gd'v k|hflt, lxdflno If]qsf ljleGg 7fpFx?df cjl:yt 5g\ . oL d[u k|hfltsf] ;+Vofdf sdL x'g'sf] d'Vo sf/0f jf;:yfgsf] If]tL / ljv08gsf ;fy} rf]/L lzsf/L x'g . oL nf]kf]Gd'v k|hfltsf] ;+/If0fsf nflu pko'Qm Joj:yfkgsf] /0flgtLx? to ug{ pgLx?sf] k|fyldstfdf kg]{ jf;:yfgx?sf] ljz]iftfx? klxrfg cfjZostf 5 . of] cWoog g]kfnsf] cGgk"0f{ ;+/If0f If]qsf] lg:ofË EofnLdf s:t''/L d[un] dg k/fpg] jf;:yfgsf] klxrfg ug{ ul/ Psf] lyof] . o; cWoogsf nflu 6«fGh]6 ;e]{If0f k|of]u ul/ pgLx?sf] jf;:yfg If]qsf Kof/fld6/x? ;+sng ul/Psf] lyof] . jg:klt k|hfltx?sf] k|of]u / pknJwtfsf] ljZn]if0f ug{ @) ju{ ld6/ cfsf/sf] g]i6]8 Sjf8/]6 Kn6x? :yfkgf ul/Psf] lyof] . pgLx?sf] jf;:yfgsf] k|fyldstfsf] lgwf{/0f ug{sf nflu Ivelv’s electivity index (IV) (-1 to +1) k|of]u ul/Psf] lyof] eg] ljleGg jf;:yfg Kof/fld6/x?sf] kl/If0f ug{sf nflu jfg jf]o ANOVA (F) / chi-square tests (χ2) 6]:6x? k|of]u ul/Psf] lyof] . To;} ul/ jg:kltx?sf] nflu Importance Value Index (IVI) lgwf{/0f ul/Psf] lyof] . xfd|f] cWoogn] lxdfnog s:t'/L d[un] #^)!–#*)) prfO{ -IV= 0.3, F= 4.58, P <0.05_, @!–#) l8u|L le/fnf]kg -IV= 0.2, F= 4.14, P <0.05_, @^–%) k|ltzt s|fpg se/ -IV= 0.25, F= 4.45, P <0.05_, @^–%) k|ltzt u|fp08 se/ -IV= 0.15, F= 4.13, P <0.05_ / ldl>t jg -IV= 0.29, χ2= 28.82, df= 3, p <0.001_, /x]sf jf;:yfx?nfO{ lgs} dg k/fPsf] b]lvG5 . ?v k|hfltx?df Abies spectabilis (IVI= 74.87, IV= 0.035) / Rhododendron arboretum (IVI= 55.41, IV= 0.02) w]/} dg k/fO{Psf 5g\ eg] emf8L k|hfltx?df Rhododendron lepidotum, Cassiope fastigiata (IV= 0.35) / Berberis aristata (IV= 0.25) w]/} dg k/fO{Psf 5g\ / e'O{F 3fF; k|hfltx?df Primula denticulata (IV= 0.87) / Primula rotundifolia (IV= 0.31) jl9 dg k/fO{Psf 5g\ . o; cWoog If]qsf s:t'/L d[usf] :jo+;dy{tf hg;+VofnfO{ lbuf] agfpg pgLx?sf] k|fyldstfdf k/]sf jf;:yfgx?sf] cj:yfnfO{ sfod /fVg / ;+/If0f ug{ cfjZostf b]lvG5 . ;fy;fy}, pgLx?sf] jf;:yfg pko'Qmfdf hnjfo' kl/jt{gsf k|efjx?sf] cf+sng ug{ yk cWoog cg';Gwfg cfjZos 5 .

Editor: L.A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Date of publicaton: 26 June 2021 (online & print)

Citaton: Neupane, B., N.B. Chhetri & B. Dhami (2021). Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus leucogaster (Mammalia: Artodactyla: Moschidae) with respect to biophysical atributes in Annapurna Conservaton Area of Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(7): 18703–18712. htps://doi.org/10.11609/ jot.6725.13.7.18703-18712

Copyright: © Neupane et al. 2021. Creatve Commons Atributon 4.0 Internatonal License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproducton, and distributon of this artcle in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publicaton.

Funding: The Ruford Foundaton, UK Funding number is 20257-1.

Competng interests: The authors declare no competng interests.

For Author details and Author contributons see end of this artcle.

Acknowledgements: We are very grateful to The Ruford Foundaton, UK for funding with the Small Research Grant to accomplish this research; Prof. Dr. Santosh Rayamajhi, Tribhuvan, University, Insttute of Forestry, Ofce of Dean, Kathmandu, Nepal and Dr. Paras Bikram Singh, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China for their guidance and support throughout the research; all the feld assistants and local people for their contributons during our feldwork; and the anonymous reviewers and editors for their precious tme, suggestons, and comments on the manuscript.

18703 J TT Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer in Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal Neupane et al. INTRODUCTION

Musk Deer under genus Moschus are of taxonomic, biological, and commercial interest; the later primarily arising from the value of the musk produced by adult male deer (Khadka & James 2016). Refned and improved knowledge has enabled the recogniton of seven Moschus species (Li et al. 2016), with three occurring in Nepal (Satyakumar et al. 2015): the Black Musk Deer M. fuscus, Alpine Musk Deer M. chrysogaster of the eastern Himalaya, and the Himalayan or White-bellied Musk Deer M. leucogaster of the central Himalaya. Based on the mtDNA analysis, Singh et al. (2019) validated that the southern parts of the Himalaya of Nepal, India, and © Nar Bahadur Chhetri Pakistan hold the ranges of two species, Himalayan Musk Image 1. Musk Deer captured during feldwork in Annapurna Deer and Kashmir Musk Deer M. cupreus of western Conservaton Area. Himalaya and Hindu Kush. The Natonal Parks and Wildlife Conservaton Act, 2029 (1973), Nepal (GoN 1973) includes the Musk the improvement of asset choice behavior (Boyce & Deer Moschus chrysogaster (Image 1) in Schedule-1 as McDonald 1999; Manly et al. 2007). An asset choice a “Protected Wildlife” species. Earlier, M. chrysogaster may be forever or briefy exhausted by the acton of the was believed to be the only Musk Deer species of Nepal. creature (Green 1986). Moreover, habitat preference is M. fuscus was believed to be extnct, or not recorded the disproportonality among utlizaton and accessibility in Nepal (Bhuju et al. 2007, page 30, 106), and M. (Manly et al. 2007). Creatures are liable to contending leucogaster was earlier treated as subspecies of M. requests and inspiratons for example, must secure chrysogaster (Satyakumar et al. 2015). In the present nourishment, discover mates, raise ofspring, protect study, we have treated the Musk Deer of Annapurna restricted assets, and maintain a strategic distance from Conservaton Area as Moschus leucogaster (hereby predators. So as to achieve these goals, their decision Musk Deer) in central Nepal. The species is categorized of natural surrounding selecton is infuenced and as ‘Endangered’ in the IUCN Red List (Harris 2016). balanced over their area in space (Hebblewhite & Merrill The Musk Deer is a solidary and crepuscular mammal 2009). The majority of the wildlife conservatonists that is found at higher elevatons from 2500 to 4500 have concentrated on natural surrounding selecton m (Green 1986). The species inhabits in the mountain for managing the populaces and antcipatng impacts forest of China, northern India, Bhutan, and Nepal of natural surrounding disturbances (Boroski et al. (Green 1986; Grubb 2005). It is confned in protected 1996). Other than this, however, it can be utlized as areas of high mountainous regions of Nepal, namely Api an apparatus to see how environment, behavior and Nampa Conservaton Area (ANCA), Khaptad Natonal wellness are connected (McLoughlin et al. 2008; Gaillard Park (KNP), Rara Natonal Park (RNP), Shey Phoksundo et al. 2010). The growing anthropogenic weight and their Natonal Park (SPNP), Sagarmatha Natonal Park following impacts on natural life has been well seen all (SNP), Dhorpatan Huntng Reserve (DHR), Annapurna around (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Conservaton Area (ACA), Manaslu Conservaton Area The populaton of Musk Deer is declining due to (MCA), Langtang Natonal Park (LNP), Makalu Barun several anthropogenic pressures, including illegal Natonal Park (MBNP), and Kanchenjunga Conservaton huntng and habitat loss or degradaton (Jnawali et al. Area (KCA) (Jnawali et al. 2011; Aryal & Subedi 2011). 2011) due to human encroachment, frewood collecton, Forests of oak, rhododendron, blue pine, juniper, and etc. (Thapa et al. 2018). Suitable living space for deer grasslands are the preferred habitat types of the Musk is principally limited to protected areas in fragmented Deer (Green 1986; Katel & Alldredge 1991). habitats (Singh et al. 2018a). As per Shrestha (2012), Habitat preference is an intrinsic behavior that Musk Deer is one of the least studied mammals and determines the selecton and ftness of species to its populaton is found in highly isolated areas. Hence partcular habitat (Jaenike & Holt 1991). It is an taking all these consideratons, our study was focused to element of natural factors which may prompt to identfy and explore the state of the habitats in respect

18704 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712 Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer in Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal Neupane et al. J TT

Nepal

Figure 1. Locaton map of Annapurna Conservaton Area and Nysheang Valley, Nepal.

of topographic and vegetaton highlights that portray lynx, Himalayan Marmot Marmota himalayana, Red their habitat preferences. Fox Vulpes vulpes, and bird species including Danphe Lophophorus impejanus, Lammergier Gypaetus barbatus, Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, Cheer MATERIALS AND METHODS Pheasant Catreus wallichi, Crimson-horned Pheasant Tragopan satyra (Inskipp & Inskipp 2001; DNPWC 2016). Study Area The Musk Deer mainly occurs in the valleys of Manang The Annapurna Conservaton Area (ACA) is located and Mustang districts of ACA. The Nysheang Valley of in the hills and mountain of west-central Nepal (28.231– Manang (Figure 1), within the north-east porton of ACA 29.3360N and 83.486–84.4450E) and covers a total area is one of the major pocket areas for Musk Deer (Singh et of 7,629 km2 under fve districts (DNPWC 2016). It is the al. 2018a). It occupies an area 689.6 km2 and elevaton frst and largest conservaton area of the country. To the ranging 2,900–7,939 m. north, it is bounded by the dry mountainous deserts of Dolpa and Tibet, toward the west by the Dhaulagiri Data Collecton Himal and the Kaligandaki Valley, toward the east by The study was conducted during March of 2018. At the Marshyangdi basin, and toward the south by the that tme, the snowfall had decreased and the meltng valleys and lower regions incorporatng Pokhara. It of snow had accelerated, which aided our investgaton. harbors number of faunal species including 488 birds, To identfy habitat parameters, a random sampling 23 amphibians, 20 fsh, 105 mammals, 40 reptles and technique was utlized. Throughout the study area 347 buterfies (DNPWC 2016). ACA supports living ‘habitat use plots’ (U) and availability plots (A) were space for several threatened mammal species including adopted. On each locaton where indirect signs of Musk Himalayan Brown Bear Ursus arctos, Red Panda Ailurus Deer such as latrine, hair, pugmark, and bed site were fulgens, Common Goral Nemorhardus goral, Lynx Felis observed; ‘habitat use plot’ was established within 50 m

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712 18705 J TT Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer in Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal Neupane et al.

Figure 2. Layout of quadrats within the transect in the study area.

distance. Habitat parameters, in partcular the gradient, availability plots, respectvely. alttude, crown cover, ground cover and land features Regarding vegetaton analysis, the feld data was were noted from each plot. ‘Habitat availability plots’ utlized to calculate the species richness, frequency and were chosen at 100 m distance from the use plots in relatve frequency, density, and relatve density of tree a random directon (Panthi et al. 2012) and the similar using following formulae (Smith 1980). habitat parameters were noted as recorded in the use ü Density of species plots. ‘Availability plots’ were renamed as ‘use plots’

if signs of the deer were present in availability plots. Vegetaton analysis was performed within both the use ����� ������ �� ����������� �� ������� � � = and availability plots. Quadrats of size 20 × 20 m were ü Relative density of species ����� ������ �� ����� �������� ∗ ���� �� ���� placed on each transect at the intervals of 100 m (Singh

et al. 2018a). Within the quadrats, nested structured Total number of individual of species A A = small quadrats of size 5 × 5 m and 1 × 1 m were laid ü Frequency of species Total number of individuals of all species (Figure 2). Trees (dbh >10cm) were measured in each 20 × 20 m quadrat, shrubs and sapling (tree species >1 m height and <10 cm diameter) were measured in 5 × ������ �� ����� �� �ℎ��ℎ ������� � ������ ∗ 100 ü Relative Frequency of species � = 5 m quadrats and seedlings (tree <1 m in height) were ����� ������ �� ������ �����

measured in 1 × 1 m quadrats and those measurements were recorded. Besides, informaton such as the tree ��������� ����� �� ������� � ∗ 100 � = diameter at breast height (DBH), height, crown cover, ü Relative dominance of species ����� ��������� ������ �� ��� ������� number of trees, ground cover, frequency of tree, shrub

and herb as well as signs of animals were collected ����� ����� ���� �� ������� � ∗ 100 � = within the quadrats. ����� ����� ���� �� ��� ������� Importance value index (IVI) was calculated as Data Analysis IVI = Relatve density + relatve frequency + relatve Using Ivlev’s electvity index (IV), habitat preference dominance. of deer was analyzed. The IV value ranges from -1.0 to Besides, one-way ANOVA and Chi-square test were + 1.0. Habitat preference is indicated by the positve used to identfy the signifcances of diferent habitat value, whereas negatve value indicates avoidance and variables; crown cover, ground cover, forest types with fnally, 0 values indicate random use (Ivlev 1964). For respect to Musk Deer presence at 5% level of signifcance. this purpose, following relaton was used. I or IV = (U%-A%) / (U%+A %) (Ivlev 1964; Krebs 1989; Panthi et al. 2012), where U and A refer to use and

18706 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712 Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer in Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal Neupane et al. J TT RESULTS Table 1. Afliaton of diferent biophysical variables with the living space of Musk Deer in the study area.

Habitat Preferences Variables Estmate SE Z-value P-value Alttude Preference: The Musk Deer mainly preferred (Intercept) -5.36 2.36 -2.27 <0.05 alttudinal ranges of 3,601–3,800 m with (IV= 0.3) Betula forest 1.44 1.67 0.85 0.39

(Figure 3). Alttudinal preference increased from 3201 m Mixed forest 5.06 2.09 2.41 <0.05 to 3800 m in a gradual manner. The alttudinal range of Rhododendron forest 1.73 1.63 1.05 0.28 3,801–4,000 m (IV= 0.2) was least preferred. Similarly, Distance to setlements 0.002 0.001 1.53 0.012 the region beneath the elevaton 3,200 m (IV= -0.25) and Rock cover 0.02 0.01 1.71 0.08 above 4,000 m (IV= -0.8) was avoided. The utlizaton of Liter cover -0.14 0.06 -2.20 <0.05 diferent alttude intervals in extent to their availabilites was statstcally signifcant (F= 4.58, P <0.05). SE—Standard error. Slope Preference: Primarily, the Musk Deer preferred the slope 21º to 30º (IV= 0.2) (Figure 4). Preference slope expanded in contnuous way from 11º to 30º and avoided 76–100 % cover (IV = -0.75) (Figure 6). This somewhat diminished up to 40º. It avoided the slope suggests that it preferred scarce and modest ground <10º (IV= -0.25) and >40º (IV= -0.71). The use of diferent cover. The use of diferent ground cover in extent to their slopes in extent to their availability was statstcally availability was statstcally signifcant (F= 4.13, P <0.05). signifcant (F= 4.14, P <0.05). Since most of pellet was documented in forest, it Crown Cover Preference: Mainly, the Musk Deer was fgured out that the Musk Deer preferred forest (IV= favored the crown cover of 26 to 50 % (IV= 0.25) followed 0.15) (Figure 7). The clif (IV= 0) and rock (IV= 0) were by crown cover of 51 to 75 % (IV= 0.05), while 76 to 100 utlized randomly and the stream-bed (IV= -0.43) was % (IV= -0.65) crown cover was evaded (Figure 5). The totally dodged. The use of diferent ground features in utlizaton of diferent crown cover in extent to their extent to their availability was statstcally signifcant (F= availability was statstcally signifcant (F= 4.45, P <0.05). 3.29, P <0.05). Ground Cover Preference: Initally ground cover Forest Types Preference: The proporton of forest was parttoned in 4 classes for the analysis. Ground types utlized by the Musk Deer was statstcally cover having 26–50 % (IV= 0.15) and 0–25% (IV= 0.09) signifcant (χ2= 28.82, df= 3, p <0.001). From Figure was mostly preferred by Musk Deer while it completely 8, it can be concluded that mixed forest (IV= 0.29) was

Table 2. Musk Deer presence and the occurrence of diferent tree species in the study area.

Relatve Relatve Relatve Species Density Dominance Frequency IVI Ivlev’s Value Status 1. Abies spectablis 21.46 32.25 21.16 74.87 0.035 Prefer

2. Rhododendron arboretum 16.34 23.73 15.34 55.41 0.02 Prefer

3. Betula utlis 13.66 5.3 11.82 30.78 0.01 Prefer

4. Rhododendron campanulate 13.9 19.55 13.4 46.85 0.034 Prefer

5. Spruce spp 7.56 2.5 7.58 17.64 0.16 Prefer

6. Taxus bacata 5.61 4.04 6 15.65 0.15 Prefer

7. Cupresus spp 5.85 2.1 5.82 13.77 - 0.36 Avoid

8. Abies pindrow 4.15 1.56 4.76 10.47 0.14 Prefer

9. Berberis spp 3.9 3.6 3.88 11.38 0.135 Prefer

10. Honey suckle 1.71 0.98 2.65 5.34 0.12 Prefer

11. Pinus wallichiana 2.2 0.62 3 5.82 -0.4 Avoid

12. Sorbus lanata 0.73 1.22 1.59 3.54 -0.5 Avoid

13. Rododendron anthopogan 1.46 1.19 1.41 4.06 0.12 Prefer

14. Acer spp 0.98 0.88 0.88 2.74 0.15 Prefer

15 Sorbus sapling 0.49 0.48 0.71 1.68 0.12 Prefer

Total 100 100 100 300

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712 18707 J TT Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer in Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal Neupane et al. Ivlev’s value Ivlev’s

Figure 3. Preferred alttude by Musk Deer in the study area. Ivlev’s value Ivlev’s

Figure 4. Preferred slope by Musk Deer in the study area. Ivlev’s value Ivlev’s Figure 5. Preferred crown cover by Musk Deer in the study area.

Ivlev’s value Ivlev’s Figure 6. Preferred ground cover by Musk Deer in the study area.

Figure 7. Ground cover types preferred by Musk Deer in the study area.

18708 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712 Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer in Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal Neupane et al. J TT Forest types Forest

Figure 8. Forest types preferred by Musk Deer in the study area.

mostly preferred, and the second preference was for Table 3. Musk Deer presence and the occurrence of diferent shrub Rhododendron forest (IV= 0.17), whereas, Betula forest species in the study area. (IV= -0.58) along with alpine scrub (IV= -0.08) were Species Ivlev’s value Status completely avoided by the Musk Deer. 1 Rhododendron lepidotum 0.35 Prefer

Infuencing Biophysical Variables: Habitat sorts, 2 Cassiope fastgiata 0.35 Prefer fuel wood and wood cutng, rock cover, liter cover 3 Berberis aristata 0.25 Prefer and distance to setlements infuenced on the choice 4 Rhododendron anthopogon 0.02 Prefer of the living space of the Musk Deer where mixed 6 Incarvillea argute -0.14 Avoid forest, distance to setlements and liter cover were the 7 Rhododendron ciliatum -0.14 Avoid foremost and critcal infuencing factors (Table 1). Tree Species Preference: Altogether 15 species 8 Juniperus squamata -0.15 Avoid of trees were recorded from 72 plots. Out of 15 tree 9 Rosa sericea -0.29 Avoid species, the Musk Deer showed preference for 12 10 Caragana gerardiana -0.34 Avoid species and avoidance for 3 species (Table 2). Tree species that appeared to have been avoided include Pinus wallichiana (IVI= 5.82, IV= -0.4), Cupresus spp. (Table 4). (IVI= 13.77, IV= -0.36) and Sorbus slanata (IVI= 3.54, IV= -0.5). Shrub Species Preference: A sum of 10 shrub species DISCUSSION was documented within the 72 plots. The Musk Deer preferred Rhododendron lepidotum (IV= 0.35), Cassiope Habitat usage relies upon factors like the creature’s fastgiata (IV= 0.35), Berberis aristata (IV= 0.25), and behavior, length of the day and the tme of year Rhododendron anthopogon (IV= 0.02). Whereas, in relaton to accessibility of food, shelter, and cover Juniperus squamata (IV= -0.15), Incarvillea arguta (Green & Katel 1997). Anthropogenic and natural and Rhododendron cillatum (IV= -0.14) and Caragana factors may also infuence accessibility to habitats and gerardiana (IV= -0.34) were avoided (Table 3). modify habitat preference (Pulliam & Daielson 1991). It Herb Species Preference: Out of total 18 herb species is also possible that preferences vary among species of documented, the Musk Deer favored nine species and the same genus. In this context, without atemptng to avoided the remaining nine species. Primula dentculata specify species level diferences, we observed that our (IV= 0.87), and Primula rotundifolia, Primula sikkimensis, base-line fndings (Table 1) on habitat preference by Bistorta macrophylla, Anaphalis triplinervis, Viola bifora, Musk Deer from ACA are comparable to certain extents Primula gembeliana, Potentlla cuneata and Artemisia with other studies in Nepal and neighborhood. dubia were in the preferred herbaceous habitat. Khadka & James (2016) found that Musk Deer Whereas, Rumex nepalensis and Saussurea deltoidea preferred small patch of pine and fr forest in the (IV= -0.35) were the most avoided herb species, and central Himalayas. While in ACA the preferences were Anemone demissa, Thalictrum alpinum, Aster albescens, the maximum in mixed forest to the minimum in Betula Pedicularis poluninii, Morina nepalensis, and Meconopsis forest, and the preference for Rhododendron forest was horridula were in the area avoided by the Musk Deer low, close to that of Betula forest. The preference for

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712 18709 J TT Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer in Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal Neupane et al. Table 4. Musk Deer presence and the occurrence of diferent herb In Api-Nampa Conservaton Area, the slopes of species in the study area. 21–30º are highly preferred followed by slopes >40º by Species Ivlev's Value Status Musk Deer and avoid the slope of 0–10º (ANCA 2018).

1 Primula dentculate 0.87 Prefer The study carried by Singh et al. (2018b) recorded the

2 Primula rotundifolia 0.31 Prefer majority of latrines of Musk Deer in the slope of 20– 40º in ACA. Our study in ACA coincides with these two 3 Primula sikkimensis 0.2 Prefer studies as the principally preferred slope lie at 20–30º 4 Bistorta macrophylla 0.16 Prefer and completely avoid the slopes of 0–10º and >41º. Anaphalis triplinervis 5 0.15 Prefer Plain slope in our study was avoided due to presence of 6 Viola bifora 0.14 Prefer catle grazing. Shrestha (2012) also suggested that Musk 7 Primula gembeliana 0.12 Prefer Deer avoid areas with high human disturbances like fuel 8 Potentlla cuneate 0.04 Prefer wood collecton and catle grazing. And the slope >41º 9 Artemisia dubia 0.02 Prefer might have been avoided because of difcult terrain that 10 Anemone demissa -0.11 Avoid resist them escaping from their predator. 11 Thalictrum alpinum -0.13 Avoid Study carried out by Singh et al. (2018b) reported

12 Aster albescens -0.15 Avoid that Musk Deer prefer greater crown cover with high

13 Pedicularis poluninii -0.16 Avoid shrub diversity. In contrast to this, Musk Deer preferred moderate crown cover, i.e., 26–50 % in Api-Nampa 14 Morina nepalensis -0.16 Avoid Conservaton Area (ANCA 2018), which is similar to our 15 Meconopsis horridula -0.2 Avoid study. This is because the dense cover suppresses the 16 Oxytropis microphylla -0.34 Avoid growth of the ground level vegetaton due to low light 17 Saussurea deltoidea -0.35 Avoid penetraton, which might create the food shortage for 18 Rumex nepalensis -0.35 Avoid the Musk Deer. This insight is supported by the study of Awast et al. (2003) who recognized Musk Deer as the mixed feeder, i.e., grazers and browsers. forests of mixed stands and Rhododendron in our study The thickness of ground cover governs the habitat appears similar to the fndings by Shrestha & Meng preference of Musk Deer. The study carried out by Ilyas (2014) in Gaurishankar Conservaton Area, Nepal. (2015) stated that Musk Deer prefer sparse ground Concerning preferences for alttude range, Timmins cover. This study is supported by the study carried out & Duckworth (2015) suggested that 2,500–4,800 m in Api-Nampa Conservaton Area where Musk Deer is the most preferred for M. leucogaster, while Thapa principally prefer the ground cover of 26–50 % (ANCA et al. (2019) mentoned that 3,700–3,800 m was the 2018), which is similar to our study in ACA. The dense foremost favored alttudinal extent for Moschus in ground cover is avoided; the reason could be that it is Khaptad Natonal Park, Nepal. Ilyas (2015) observed that a less friendly since it resists the rapid movement of Musk majority of the latrines of M. chrysogaster in Utarakhand Deer that hinders to escape from predator. Singh et al. Himalaya, India occurred from 4,200 m down to 2,500 (2018b) reported that 69 % of the Musk Deer latrines m. A study carried out by Srivastava & Kumar (2018) were observed under tree, 26.4 % under canopy, and 4.6 revealed that Musk Deer preferred the habitat within % under rock. Similar to this study, forest and cave were the alttude range 3,600–3,900 m in Sikkim Himalaya. found to be preferred and stream bed was found to be Likewise, the Musk Deer highly preferred that alttude avoided in our study, which may be because the forest range 3,600–3,900 m in Api-Nampa Conservaton Area, and caves are used for thermal requirements and escape Nepal (ANCA 2018). In our study, the species favored whereas the streams are difcult to move across. the alttudes of 3,600–3,800 m, which is similar to the According to Khadka & James (2016), the Himalayan alttudinal preference in Api-Nampa Conservaton Area, Musk Deer seems to utlize the region featured by Nepal and Himalaya of Sikkim. However, elevaton alone presence of Pinus species and Abies species forest with does not directly afect the Musk Deer’s distributon. moderately thick canopy cover (26–50 %) on higher Instead, elevaton is correlated with other climatc elevaton zone (≥ 3600 m) of the northern aspect. predictors like precipitaton, temperature and solar These choices are apparently social and structural radiatons (Elith & Leathwick 2009) that lead to the adjustments (Futuyma & Moreno 1988). Musk Deer are change in habitat features and its quality to support the shy and elusive creatures (Katel 1993) with longer rear occurrence of the species. appendages compared to forelimbs, an adaptaton for

18710 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712 Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer in Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal Neupane et al. J TT living in rough terrain at high elevatons. The dominaton Awast, A., S.K. Uniyal, G.S. Rawat & S. Sathyakumar (2003). Food of Abies species, which have dense crown cover, protects plants and feeding habits of Himalayan ungulates. Current Science 85: 719–723. the area from snow, while the rivers fowing through Bhuju, U.R., P.R. Shakya, T.B. Basnet & S. Shrestha (2007). Nepal the area serve as major water sources for Musk Deer Biodiversity Resource Book: Protected Areas, Ramsar Sites, and World Heritage Sites. Internatonal Centre for Integrated Mountain throughout the year. Development Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Data on habitat parameters and their levels of Government of Nepal in cooperaton with United Natons preference recorded from diferent protected areas Environment Programme, Regional Ofce for Asia and the Pacifc, 161pp. provide valuable baseline data, and ofer the scope Boroski, B.B., R.H. Barret, I.C. Timossi & J.G. Kie (1996). Modelling for determining micro-habitat for diferent species habitat suitability for black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus of Moschus in Nepal. Correlatons in future when columbianus) in heterogeneous landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 88: 157–165. htps://doi.org/10.1016/S0378- camera traps or molecular studies enable to have clear 1127(96)03821-2 knowledge on the profle of species in each protected Boyce, M.S. & L.L. McDonald (1999). Relatng populatons to habitats area. using resource selecton functons. Trends in Ecology & Evoluton 14: 268–272. htps://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01593-1 DNPWC (2016). The annual report. Department of Natonal Park and Wildlife Conservaton, Ministry of Forest and Environment, CONCLUSION Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. Elith, J. & J.R. Leathwick (2009). Species distributon models: ecological explanaton and predicton across space and tme. Annual The Musk Deer appear to have habitually utlized Review of Ecology, Evoluton, and Systematcs 40: 677–697. htps:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159 mixed and Rhododendron stands for defecaton and Futuyma, D.J. & G. Moreno (1988). The evoluton of ecological foraging. Deer occurrence is sparse at lower elevatons specializaton. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematcs 19: 207– and higher elevatons close to the tree line, and they are 233. Gaillard, J.M., M. Hebblewhite, A. Loison, M. Fuller, R. Powell, M. mostly distributed between 3,600 and 4,000 m. Thus Basille & B. van Moorter (2010). Habitat–performance relatonships: alttudinal ranges of 3,800–4,000 m with mixed and fnding the right metric at a given spatal scale. Philosophical Rhododendron woods adjacent to water sources are transactons of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 365: 2255–2265. htps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0085 appropriate regions to execute conservaton programs GoN (1973). Natonal Parks and Wildlife Conservaton Act. Nepal Law to protect Musk Deer and their environment. The Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal. likelihood of pellet presence diminished with the rise Green, M.J. (1986). The distributon, status and conservaton of the Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus chrysogaster. Biological in ground elevaton. A total of 15, 10 and 18 species Conservaton 35: 347–375. htps://doi.org/10.1016/0006- of tree, shrub and herb were recorded, respectvely, in 3207(86)90094-7 the study area. The occurrence of Musk Deer was more Green, M.J.B. & B. Katel (1997). Musk Deer: litle understood, even its scent. Paper presented at: The frst internatonal symposium around the forested area with crown cover of 26–50 on endangered species used in traditonal East Asian Medicine: %, and the tree species Abies spectablis, Betula utlis, substtutes for tger bone and musk; December 7–8; Hong Kong, Acer spp., Rododendron spp., Spruce spp., Taxus bacata, 5pp. Grubb, P. (2005). Artodactyla. Mammal species of the world: a Honey suckle, Berberis spp. etc. The terrain with Pinus taxonomic and geographic reference, 637–722pp. wallichiana, Cupresus spp. and Sorbus spp. appear to Harris, R. (2016). IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2020.1. www.iucnredlist.org Downloaded on 9 June 2020. have been avoided. Likewise, the deer appear to have Hebblewhite, M. & E.H Merrill (2009). Trade‐ofs between predaton preferred areas where we have listed four species of risk and forage difer between migrant strategies in a migratory shrub and nine species of herb, and further studies are ungulate. Ecology 90: 3445–3454. htps://doi.org/10.1890/08- 2090.1 required to assess the habitat suitability of the Musk Ilyas, O. (2015). Status, habitat use and conservaton of Alpine Musk Deer in response to climate change. Deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in Utarakhand Himalayas, India. Journal of Applied Animal Research 43: 83–91. htps://doi.org/10 .1080/09712119.2014.899495 Ivlev, V.S. (1961). Experimental Ecology of the Feeding of Fishes. REFERENCES University Microflms, 302pp. Jaenike, J. & R.D. Holt (1991). Genetc variaton for habitat preference: ANCA (2018). An Assessment of status, distributon and habitat evidence and explanatons. The American Naturalist 137: 67–90. preferenece of Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus Chrysogaster) in Jnawali, S.R., H.S. Baral, S. Lee, N. Subedi, K.P. Acharya, G.P. Api Nampa Conservaton Area (ANCA). (A Case Study of Byas Rural Upadhaya, M. Pandey, R. Shrestha, D. Joshi, B.R. Lamichhane, J. Municipality). Submited by: Peoples’ Help Group Dadhikot-9, Frifths & A.P. Khatwada (2011). The Status of Nepal’s Mammals: Bhaktapur, 66pp. Downloaded on 9 June 2021 . htp://ancadarchula. The Natonal Red List Series. Department of Natonal Parks and gov.np/media/download_atachment/fnal_report_Musk_deer.pdf Wildlife Conservaton, Kathmandu, Nepal, 266pp. Aryal, A. & A. Subedi (2011). The conservaton and potental habitat Katel, B. (1993). Ecology of the Himalayan Musk Deer in Sagarmatha of the Himalayan Musk Deer Moschur Chrysogaster in the protected Natonal Park, Nepal. PhD thesis. Colorado State University, USA. areas of Nepal. Internatonal Journal of Conservaton Science 2: Katel, B. & A.W. Alldredge (1991). Capturing and handling of the 127–141. Himalayan Musk Deer. Wildlife Society Bulletn, 19: 397–399.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712 18711 J TT Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer in Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal Neupane et al. Khadka, K.K. & D.A. James (2016). Habitat selecton by endangered Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus Author details: Bijaya Neupane is an chrysogaster) and impacts of livestock grazing in Nepal Himalaya: Implicatons for conservaton. Journal Assistant Professor and belongs to for Nature Conservaton 31: 38–42. htps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.03.002 Department of Park Recreaton and Wildlife Management since December Krebs, C.J. (1989). Ecological Methodology. Harper and Row, New York, USA. 2016. He possesses more than 5 years Li, X., W.V. Bleisch & X. Jiang (2016). Efects of ethnic setlements and land management status on species of research and teaching experiences distributon paterns: a case study of endangered Musk Deer (Moschus Spp.) in Northwest Yunnan, in ecology and wildlife conservaton China. PLoS One 11(5): e0155042. htps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155042 in Nepal as well as some feld and lab Manly, B.F.L., L. McDonald, D.L. Thomas, T.L. McDonald & W.P. Erickson (2007). Resource selecton by experiences in Norway and Sweden. animals: statstcal design and analysis for feld studies. Springer Science & Business Media. Nar Bahadur Chhetri is a forest Ofcer; McLoughlin, P.D., T. Coulson & T. Cluton-Brock (2008). Cross‐generatonal efects of habitat and density on graduated in the M.Sc. Forestry program and has more than four years of life history in red deer. Ecology 89: 3317–3326. htps://doi.org/10.1890/07-1044.1 experiences in the wildlife conservaton Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. feld. Bijaya Dhami is an undergraduate World Resources Insttute, Washington, DC. fnal year student and is actvely involved Panthi, S., A. Aryal, D. Raubenheimer, J. Lord & B. Adhikari (2012). Summer diet and distributon of the Red in several conservaton actvites and is Panda (Ailurus Fulgens Fulgens) in Dhorpatan Huntng Reserve, Nepal. Zoological Studies 51(5): 701–709. the president of his NGO, one of green Pulliam, H.R. & B.J. Danielson (1991). Sources, sinks, and habitat selecton: a landscape perspectve on organizatons of Pokhara. populaton dynamics. The American Naturalist 137: 50–66. Author contributons: Conceptuali- Satyakumar, S., G.S. Rawat & A.J.T. Johnsingh (2015). Order Artodactyla, Family Moschidae Evoluton, zaton and design – BN and NBC; Taxonomy and Distributon. Mammals of South Asia 2(1): 159–175. methodology - BN, NBC and BD; data Shrestha, B.B. (2012). Communal pellet depositon sites of Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus chrysogaster) analysis and interpretatons – BN, NBC and associated vegetaton compositon. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway. and BD; conductng feld work – NBC; Shrestha, B.B. & X. Meng (2014). Spring habitat preference, associaton and threats of Himalayan Musk Deer Preparing manuscript and editorial (Moschus leucogaster) in Gaurishankar Conservaton Area, Nepal. Internatonal Journal of Conservaton inputs – All authors contributed Science 5: 535–546. equally; fnalizing the manuscript and corresponding to the journal- BN. Singh, P.B., B.B. Shrestha, A. Thapa, P. Saud & Z. Jiang (2018a). Selecton of latrine sites by Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus leucogaster) in Neshyang Valley, Annapurna Conservaton Area, Nepal. Journal of Applied Animal Research 46: 920–926. htps://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1430578 Singh, P.B, P. Saud, D. Cram, K. Mainali, A. Thapa, N.B. Chhetri, L.P. Poudyal, H.S. Baral & Z. Jiang (2018b). Ecological correlates of Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus leucogaster. Ecology and Evoluton 9: 4–18. htps://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4435 Singh, P.B., J.R. Khatwada, P. Saud & Z. Jiang (2019). mtDNA analysis confrms the endangered Kashmir Musk Deer extends its range to Nepal. Scientfc Reports 9: 4895. htps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019- 41167-4 Smith, R.L. (1980). Ecology and Field Biology. Harper Collins, New York, 311pp. Srivastava, T. & A. Kumar (2018). Seasonal habitat use in three species of wild ungulates in Sikkim Himalaya. Mammalian Biology 88(1): 100–106. htps://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2017.11.013 Thapa, A., Y. Hu & F. Wei (2018). The endangered red panda (Ailurus fulgens): Ecology and conservaton approaches across the entre range. Biological Conservaton 220: 112–121. htps://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2018.02.014 Thapa, M.T., S. Bhandari, K. Ghimire & D.R. Bhusal (2019). Threats to endangered Musk Deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in the Khaptad Natonal Park, Nepal. Folia Oecologica 46: 170–173. htps://doi. org/10.2478/foecol-2019-0020 Timmins, J. & J.W. Duckworth (2015). Moschus leucogaster. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015; e.T13901A61977764. Downloaded on 09 June 2021. htps://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS. T13901A61977764.en

Threatened Taxa

18712 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712

The Journal of Threatened Taxa (JoTT) is dedicated to building evidence for conservaton globally by OPEN ACCESS publishing peer-reviewed artcles online every month at a reasonably rapid rate at www.threatenedtaxa.org. All artcles published in JoTT are registered under Creatve Commons Atributon 4.0 Internatonal License unless otherwise mentoned. JoTT allows allows unrestricted use, reproducton, and distributon of artcles in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publicaton.

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

June 2021 | Vol. 13 | No. 7 | Pages: 18679–18958 Date of Publicaton: 26 June 2021 (Online & Print) www.threatenedtaxa.org DOI: 10.11609/jot.2021.13.7.18679-18958

Communicatons Short Communicatons

Persistence of Trachypithecus geei (Mammalia: Primates: Cercopithecidae) in a rubber plantaton First photographic evidence and distributon of the Indian Pangolin Manis crassicaudata in Assam, India (Mammalia: Pholidota: Manidae) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India – Joydeep Shil, Jihosuo Biswas, Sudipta Nag & Honnavalli N. Kumara, Pp. 18679–18686 – Hemant Singh, Gobind Sagar Bhardwaj, N. Gokulakannan, Saket Agast & K. Aditya, Pp. 18888– 18893 Populaton assessment of the endangered Western Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock hoolock Harlan, 1834 at Sheikh Jamal Inani Natonal Park, Bangladesh, and conservaton signifcance of this site for Populaton and conservaton threats to the Greater Flamingos Phoenicopterus roseus (Aves: threatened wildlife species Phoenicopteriformes: Phoenicopteridae) at Basai Wetland and Najafgarh Jheel Bird Sanctuary, – M. Tarik Kabir, M. Farid Ahsan, Susan M. Cheyne, Shahrul Anuar Mohd Sah, Susan Lappan, Haryana, India Thad Q. Bartlet & Nadine Ruppert, Pp. 18687–18694 – Amit Kumar & Sarita Rana, Pp. 18894–18898

Assessment of changes over a decade in the paterns of livestock depredaton by the Himalayan First report on the occurrence of Sargassum Weed Fish Histrio histrio (Lophiliformes: Brown Bear in Ladakh, India Antennariidae) in Nigeria deep water, Gulf of Guinea – Aishwarya Maheshwari, A. Arun Kumar & Sambandam Sathyakumar, Pp. 18695–18702 – Abdul-Rahman Dirisu, Hanson S. Uyi & Meshack Uyi, Pp. 18899–18902

Habitat selecton of Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus leucogaster (Mammalia: Artodactyla: A new distributon record of stomatopods Odontodactylus japonicus (De Haan, 1844) and Moschidae) with respect to biophysical atributes in Annapurna Conservaton Area of Nepal Lysiosquilla tredecimdentata (Holthuis, 1941) from the Puducherry coastal waters, east coast of – Bijaya Neupane, Nar Bahadur Chhetri & Bijaya Dhami, Pp. 18703–18712 India – S. Nithya Mary, V. Ravitchandirane & B. Gunalan, Pp. 18903–18907 Sero-diagnosis of tuberculosis in elephants in Maharashtra, India – Utkarsh Rajhans, Gayatri Wankhede, Balaji Ambore , Sandeep Chaudhari, Navnath Nighot, Vithal New records of Agriocnemis keralensis Peters, 1981 and Gynacantha khasiaca MacLachlan, 1896 Dhaygude & Chhaya Sonekar, Pp. 18713–18718 (Insecta: Odonata) from Maharashtra, India – Yogesh Koli, Akshay Dalvi & Dataprasad Sawant, Pp. 18908–18919 Avian species richness in traditonal rice ecosystems: a case study from upper Myanmar – Steven G. Plat, Myo Min Win, Naing Lin, Swann Htet Naing Aung, Ashish John & Thomas R. A new distributon record of the Horn Coral Caryophyllia grandis Gardiner & Waugh, 1938 Rainwater, Pp. 18719–18737 (Anthozoa: Scleractnia) from the Karnataka Coast, India – J.S. Yogesh Kumar & C. Raghunathan, Pp. 18920–18924 Conservaton status, feeding guilds, and diversity of birds in Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Karnataka, India Re-collecton, extended distributon, and amplifed descripton of Vaccinium paucicrenatum – M.N. Harisha, K.S. Abdul Samad & B.B. Hoset, Pp. 18738–18751 Sleumer (Ericaceae) from the Arunachal Himalaya in India – Subhasis Panda, Pp. 18925–18932 Birds of Surat-Dangs: a consolidated checklist of 75 years (1944–2020) with special emphasis on noteworthy bird records and bird hotspots from northern Western Ghats of Gujarat, India – Nikunj Jambu & Kaushal G. Patel, Pp. 18752–18780 Notes

Identfcaton of a unique barb from the dorsal body contour feathers of the Indian Pita Pita Photographic record of the Rusty-spoted Cat Prionailurus rubiginosus (I. Geofroy Saint-Hilaire, brachyura (Aves: Passeriformes: Pitdae) 1831) (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae) in southern Western Ghats, India – Prateek Dey, Swapna Devi Ray, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma , Padmanabhan Pramod & Ram Pratap – Devika Sanghamithra & P.O. Nameer, Pp. 18933–18935 Singh, Pp. 18781–18791 Natural history notes on the highly threatened Pinto’s Chachalaca Ortalis remota (Aves: Cracidae) Underestmated diversity of Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887 (Sauria: Gekkonidae) on karst landscapes in – Carlos Otávio Araujo Gussoni & Marco Aurélio Galvão da Silva, Pp. 18936–18938 Sarawak, East Malaysia, Borneo – Izneil Nashriq & Indraneil Das, Pp. 18792–18799 Black-bellied Coral Snake Sinomicrurus nigriventer (Wall, 1908) (Elapidae): an extended distributon in the western Himalaya, India Aborichthys barapensis, a new species of river loach (Cypriniformes: Nemacheilidae) from – Sipu Kumar, Jignasu Dolia, Vartka Chaudhary, Amit Kumar & Abhijit Das, Pp. 18939–18942 Arunachal Pradesh, the eastern Himalaya, India – P. Nanda & L. Tamang, Pp. 18800–18808 First record of the Afghan Poplar Hawkmoth Laothoe wit Eitschberger et al., 1998 (Sphingidae: Smerinthinae) from India: a notable range extension for the genus A study on the community structure of damselfies (Insecta: Odonata: Zygoptera) in Paschim – Muzafar Riyaz, Pratheesh Mathew, Taslima Shiekh, S. Ignacimuthu & K. Sivasankaran, Pp. 18943– Medinipur, West Bengal, India 18946 – Pathik Kumar Jana, Priyanka Halder Mallick & Tanmay Bhatacharya, Pp. 18809–18816 The tribe Cnodalonini (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Stenochiinae) from Maharashtra with two new New distributon and range extension records of geometrid moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) records from two western Himalayan protected areas – V.D. Hegde & D. Vasanthakumar, Pp. 18947–18948 – Pritha Dey & Axel Hausmann, Pp. 18817–18826 Do predatory adult odonates estmate their adult prey odonates’ body size and dispersal ability to Buterfy diversity of Putalibazar Municipality, Syangja District, Gandaki Province, Nepal proceed with a successful atack? – Kismat Neupane & Mahamad Sayab Miya, Pp. 18827–18845 – Tharaka Sudesh Priyadarshana, Pp. 18949–18952

New records and distributon extension of Nassarius persicus (Martens, 1874) and N. tadjallii Rediscovery of Ophiorrhiza incarnata C.E.C. Fisch. (Rubiaceae) from the Western Ghats of Moolenbeek, 2007 (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Nassariidae) to India India afer a lapse of 83 years – Sayali Nerurkar & Deepak Apte, Pp. 18846–18852 – Perumal Murugan, Vellingiri Ravichandran & Chidambaram Murugan, Pp. 18953–18955

Flowering plants of Agumbe region, central Western Ghats, Karnataka, India Response – G.S. Adithya Rao & Y.L. Krishnamurthy, Pp. 18853–18867 Comments on the “A checklist of mammals with historical records from Darjeeling-Sikkim Populaton assessment and habitat distributon modelling of the threatened medicinal plant Himalaya landscape, India” Picrorhiza kurroa Royle ex Benth. in the Kumaun Himalaya, India – P.O. Nameer, Pp. 18956–18958 – Naveen Chandra, Gajendra Singh, Shashank Lingwal, M.P.S. Bisht & Lalit Mohan Tewari, Publisher & Host Pp. 18868–18877

Occurrence of gilled fungi in Puducherry, India – Vadivelu Kumaresan, Chakravarthy Sariha, Thokur Sreepathy Murali & Gunasekaran Senthilarasu, Pp. 18878–18887

Threatened Taxa