Distribution and Abundance of large mammals in Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary

Technical Report

Honnavalli N. Kumara and S. Rathnakumar

Karnataka Forest Department Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology Government of Karanataka and Natural History Kumara, H.N. and Rathnakumar, S. (2010). Distribution and Abundance of large mammals in Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary. Technical report submitted to Karnataka Forest Department, Chamarajanagar Wildlife Division, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka, India.

Photos: © H. P. Ashwin Designing and Printing: Silotum Creations, Mysore. Distribution and Abundance of large mammals in Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary

Technical Report

Submitted to Karnataka Forest Department

By

Honnavalli N. Kumara1 and S. Rathnakumar2

1Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatty, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India 2A. V. C. College, Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu, India Distribution and Abundance of large mammals in Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary

Executive Summary

Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary (BRT WLS) is situated in the state of Karnataka and it has been considered as a live bridge between the Eastern and Western Ghats. The high variation in the altitude has led to diverse vegetation types varying from dry open scrub forests at lower elevation to shola forests and grass hills at higher altitude making this landscape home to a wide range of faunal diversity. The sanctuary is also a part of the larger forest complex of the region considered for the conservation of Asian elephant and tiger. This forest complex is one of the areas having the largest population of elephants and tigers in the wild. Despite the fact that the sanctury is very rich in biodiversity however no baseline data on any aspects of mammals was available for the BRT WLS till date. In light of the above it was dicided to carrying out a study entaiteled "Distribution and Abundance of large mammals in Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary". During the present study we aimed to establish the distribution of large mammals in association with the forest types and assess the abundance of large mammals for the sanctuary.

Line transect method hes been used to estimate the density of large herbivore species, night surveys have been used to assess the status of nocturnal mammals, and plot work has been done to find the secondary signs of different species. We recorded all sightings of important species as incidental data. During the study period, abundance estimates of large herbivores were carried out and secondary data on large carnivore species was collected. We have used the sight records from all the methods to establish a distribution pattern of each species on vegetation map. Since the data from line transect was not enough to estimate densities at the level of forest range, the encounter rates were computed to compare between forest ranges and vegetation types. 33 transect lines with the lengths varying between 2 and 4 km were laid. Each transect was walked 5 to 11 times. Transects were walked early in

i the morning between 0600 hrs and 1000 hrs and in the evening between 1630 hrs and 1830 hrs. The study was carried out from October 2009 to April 2010. Following are some of the salient feature of the study.

Ÿ A total of 795.5 km of transect walk by single observer, 258 km of transect walk by multiple observers during day-time and 462 km of surveys during night-times were carried out in the sanctuary between October 2009 and April 2010.

Ÿ Among the 34 expected species of large mammals in the sanctuary 30 species were sighted and information on presence of one species was registered. Elusive animals like leopard cat, rusty spotted cat, slender loris, flying squirrel and chevrotain were sighted.

Ÿ Eleven sightings of rusty spotted cat in the sanctuary is a record of highest sightings of the species for a sanctuary anywhere in India. The majority of these sightings were in the drier forests at foot hills of the sanctuary.

Ÿ Slender loris, which is the state animal of Karnataka, was also sighted in two ranges. The present sighting of lorises in Punjur and Bylore forest ranges are the first sight records for the sanctuary. We confirm the sub-species found in the sanctuary as Loris lydekkerianus lydekkerianus, and the present sightings are westernmost sight record for the species in Karnataka.

Ÿ Hanuman langur, bonnet macaque, Indian giant squirrel and giant flying squirrel being arboreal mammals were found mostly in the moist deciduous and evergreen forests of the sanctuary.

Ÿ Leopard cat was largely found to be distributed in the moist deciduous and evergreen forests, while Asian palm civet, small Indian civet and porcupine show much wider distribution in the sanctuary. However muntjac and chevrotain were found to be distributed in the densely forests than the scrub forests.

Ÿ Large terrestrial herbivores including elephant, gaur, sambar, chital and wild pig were recorded in all the vegetation types. However the encounter rate varied highly between the vegetation types where-in gaur and sambar were encountered more in the ii evergreen and moist deciduous forests while chital was encountered more in the dry forests.

Ÿ Four-horned antelope was recorded in the foot hills of all forest ranges wherever deciduous forests with open canopy and open scrub forests are present. In the present forest complex of the Deccan plateau, BRT shows the presence of large extent of suitable habitat and promising population of the species.

Ÿ Blackbuck is another antelope found in the sanctuary which is restricted to fringes of the sanctuary and is also known to raid crops in the periphery of the park.

Ÿ Tiger and sloth bears are found almost in all the beats or found in more than 90% of the sanctuary area, while leopards and dholes show patchy distribution. However to confirm the distribution pattern and habitat use by leopards and dholes, a long term data collection protocol is required.

Ÿ During the transect walk, we were able to obtain more than 40 detections for all the large herbivore species excepting the wild pig and four-horned antelope, to get a good density estimate. The data on detections (sightings, perpendicular distance, sighting angle and number of individuals) of each species were used to estimate the density using software program DISTANCE version-5.

Ÿ The estimated density (animals per km²) for large herbivore species was gaur: 5.08, sambar: 6.01, chital: 13.96, muntjac: 3.70, wild pig: 5.33, four-horned antelope: 2.44, Hanuman langur: 6.34 and bonnet macaque: 6.56. Estimates of large herbivore density in the present study, when compared with those from the other parks in the country, revealed that BRT Wildlife Sanctuary holds a high density of muntjac, medium density of sambar and gaur and low density of chital and Hanuman langur. Nevertheless the density of sambar was on par or higher than that in other parks of the same landscape. Though the gaur density in BRT was lower than that in Bandipur and Nagarahole, it shows a very promising density in the landscape.

Ÿ The density of large herbivore species when multiplied with the average weight of the respective species which gave density of biomass for each species. By addition of biomass of all the species total biomass density of 4127.82 kg km-2 for the BRT Wildlife

iii Sanctuary was derived. Biomass density varies from as low as 1277.25 kg km-2 in Bhadra to 7638 kg km-2 in Nagarahole. Six parks in the country viz. Nagarahole, Ranthambore, Pench, Bandipur, Kaziranga and Kanha have a prey biomass density in excess of 4000 kg km² and the present study reveals that BRT Wildlife Sanctuary stands as one of the high biomass rich areas in the country.

Ÿ The overall herbivore density in BRT Wildlife Sanctuary was found to be lesser than many protected areas, however the density of large bodied species like gaur and sambar being very high has contributed to high biomass density. Since the density of biomass of large prey species is high in the sanctuary, the possibility of higher density of tiger is expected in comparison with other carnivore species.

Ÿ Asian elephant density was estimated to be 1.7 km-2. Compared to the earlier vague estimate the present estimate with more robust method has yielded a reliable density-estimate. However an alarming fact is that the age-sex ratio of the individuals in the population is highly skewed with very few old bulls and less percentage of immature individuals.

Ÿ Further understanding on various aspects of mammals in the sanctuary is highly essential. The present study found existence of good population of rusty spotted cat which requires detailed study on habitat selection, feeding ecology, population structure etc. Similarly four-horned antelope is a species needing more attention since their microhabitat is susceptible to fire and further suitable habitat availability for the species also needs to be studied. Elephants were poached for a long time in the region and the obvious impact of this is on their demography. The present study also confirms skewed age-sex ratios in the present population; however the data is only from a short period and hence making a final conclusion is difficult. Monitoring of elephant herds over a period for demography is crucial to understand the recovery of the population and its age-sex ratios. The availability of prey base and also sight records of tiger confirms the viability of the area for the conservation of tigers and other large predators in the sanctuary. However, proper estimation of predator populations especially tigers with appropriate methods and study of the ecology of large predators are very crucial. A dossier for each tiger would be very iv helpful to understand the movement and conflict situations of each individual tiger, especially near the buffer region of the sanctuary.

Ÿ The present study has not only established the baseline data on large mammals, but has also added intrinsic value to sanctuary by divulging various aspects on large mammals and their conservation status. The present study confirms that the sanctuary is one of the potential sites for highly endangered tiger and hence further attention on conservation and understanding of the species is imperative.

v Contents

Executive summary i

Acknowledgements ix

Chapters

Chapter - I Introduction, objectives and methods 1

Chapter - II Occurrence and distribution of mammals 11

Chapter -III Relative abundance of mammals 33

Chapter - IV Estimation of large herbivore densities 45

Chapter - V Distribution and status of Asian elephants 59 Elephas maximus

vii Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Mr. B. K. Singh for giving the permission, encouragement and constant support for the study. Thanks are also due to Mr. Rajanna, Chief Wildlife Warden and Mr. Shekar, Chief Conservator of Forests, who have extended their support throughout the study period.

The need of this study was first expressed by Mr. Bishwajith Mishra, wildlife warden of the sanctuary. Very few managers come out with reason based management in our typical management practice; he is a one with such a vision and the present study is a perfect example for it. We would like to thank him for his constant support and positive initiation to manage the park with conservation in focus.

We wish to thank Mr. Sridhar and Mr Ashwatha Narayana Gowda, Assistant Conservators of Forests, Mr. Boraiah, Mr. Shashidhar, Mr. Nataraj, Mr. Sridhar and Mr. Nagaraj, the Range Forest Officers of the sanctuary, who were actually the coordinators of the project. They took a lot of pain and spent their times with the team and , facilitated project field work. We thank Mr. Mallesh, Honorary Wildlife Warden for his encouragement and support. We acknowledge the support of Mr. Boraiah, RFO and Mr. Irshad of Chamarajanagar Wildlife Division during many difficult situations when they considered the problems as their own and helped us to come out of it.

HNK thank Dr. Azeez, Director, SACON for the constant support and encouragement.

We thank Mr. Nahar, who is a first person to introduce us to the DFO and acted as bridge and the result of this is the present study.

We thank all the forest personnel for spending time, walking transects, sharing their experiences with the wild animals, feeding us with different native dishes and giving constant support during the entire study period. We acknowledge the support of Mr. Prakash, Mr. Narayanan, Mr. Lakshmi Narayana, Mr. Saptha Girish, Mr. Kumar, Mr. Chidanand, Mr. Hemanth, and Mr. Avinash for volunteering for the

ix field work which has helped us to complete the study within the stipulated time. We thank Mr. Prakash and Mr. Ananda Kumar for editing the grammar portion of the report and helping us in improving the report.

Our special thanks to Mr. Ashwin and Mr. Sasi, who helped us to complete the night surveys and who collected the demography of elephants, got the visual records of all the species and mapped the sight records. All the photos used in the preset report are captured by Mr. Ashwin. Ashwin and Sasi have been the main personnel who have been instrumental in completing the project successfully.

Kumara and Rathnakumar

x Chapter I Introduction, objectives and methods

Introduction

Preparation of any conservation action plan requires the most basic information on importance of the given ecosystem that includes bio- diversity, ecological and conservation status of the species, distribution pattern and identification of critical area for each of the important species, evaluation of existing threats and solution for resolving or reducing them. The success of the management strategy can be assessed by analysing the response to the steps taken for the targeted population. Therefore understanding of the population dynamics is basic requirement. Though the state of Karnataka has many Protected Areas with good bio-diversity, such baseline information is not available for all the Protected Areas. Even if the assessment is available for some forests, it is limited to certain species of flora and founa. Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary (BRT WLS) is one such protected area where systematic attempt had not been made till date to document the conservation status of many taxonomic groups including mammals.

Considering the evolutionary history and geographical features, the hills in southern India are grouped as two hill systems viz. Western Ghats and Eastern Ghats (Mani, 1974). The chain of hills that parellely run along the west coast from Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu to the northern tip at Dhund in Gujarat are known as Western Ghats - these receive an annual rainfall of up to 6000 mm. The forests of Western Ghats are home to many endemic flora and fauna and are rich in biodiversity. Thus the Western Ghats has been recognized as one of the global hotspots of biodiversity (Myers et al., 2000). On the other hand, hills on eastern part of Southern India, which are known as the Eastern Ghats, lack contiguity, receive less rainfall, possess drier forests and harbour many endemic species. However the species richness may be relatively lesser than the Western Ghats. Thus topology of Southern India may be catagorized into coastal plains, Western Ghats, Eastern Ghats, central plains of northern Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, the Deccan plateau and central plains of Tamil Nadu. Biogeographically

1 Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary is located at the eastern most edge of the Western Ghats, between 11° and 12° N along its North-South running chain and meets the hills of the Eastern Ghats at 78° E. Thus the sanctuary has been considered as a live bridge between the Eastern and Western Ghats (Ganeshaiah and Uma Shankar, 1998).

Figure 1.1 Map of Karnataka showing the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary

The Biligiri Rangaswamy hills

The protected area is known as BRT (Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple) Wildlife Sanctuary. The sanctuary derives its name 'BILIGIRI ' from the white rocky cliff over which, on the table top, is a temple of Lord 'VISHNU' locally known as Rangaswamy. It is also believed that the

2 hill range gets its name from the white mist and silver clouds that cover these lofty hills for a greater part of the year. In Kannada, Biligiri means white hills- hence the name.

The sanctuary is spread over an area of 539.50 km2, however the total area falling under the administrative control of sanctuary management is approximately 610.027 km2. Of the total area, Chamarajanagar taluk has 234.76 km2 of reserve forest areas named Chamarajanagar State forest which covers K. Gudi and Punjur Ranges. 86.22 km2 of BRT State Forest falls under Yelandur taluk and 218.52 km2 of forest area by the name of Doddasampige Reserve Forest falls under Kollegal taluk.

Initially, In 1974, , an area of 324.40 km2 was constituted as the sanctuary area by the Government of Karnataka, vide Notification No.AFD-53/FWL-74 dated 27.06.74. Two Reserve Forests viz. Chamarajanagar State Forest and BRT Reserve Forest were brought under a protected area. Subsequently the adjoining Doddasampige Reserve Forest was added in 1987. Government by its Notification No. AHFF 75/FWS/84, Dt. 14.01.1987 extended BRT Wildlife Sanctuary to cover the entire Doddasampige Reserve Forests thus increasing the total area under PA network to 539.50 km2. Final notification with regard to the sanctuary was issued by Government of Karnataka vide Order No. FEE 57 FWL 94 dtd. 13-06-1994 and Order No. FEE 58 FWL 96 dtd. 27-03-1998 (Management plan, 2008).

The Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary (BRT Wildlife Sanctuary) lies between 11? 40΄-12? 09΄ N and 77? 05΄-77? 15΄ E. With an area of 540 km² and 5 Ranges. The sanctuary is part of the newly formed Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka (Fig. 1.2). The altitude varies between 600 m asl to 1800 m asl. The temperature varies spatially and temporally with the minimum temperature varying between 8o C to 16o C and the maximum temperature varying between 20o C to 38o C. Rainfall varies from year to year in its intensity and distribution, with the plateau lands receiving as low as 600 mm and the upper hills receiving 3000 mm. The average rainfall is 650 mm in the foothills, 1050 mm in B.R. Hills enclosure, 1300 mm in Bedaguli and 1990 mm in Honnameti. It is the southern area of the sanctuary that receives more rainfall than the northern area. The wide range of climatic conditions also contributes to the heterogeneous assemblage 3 of habitats such as scrub, deciduous, riparian, evergreen, sholas, grasslands etc. The major forest types considered for the sanctuary are evergreen forest (EF, 10.3%, which includes evergreen, shola and high altitude grass land), moist deciduous forest (MDF, 25%), dry deciduous forest (DDF, 36.1%) and scrub forest (SF, 28.2%) (Ramesh, 1989). However the vegetation map created by the forest department shows 27.33% EF, 22.18% MDF, 39.62% DDF and 10.86% SF (Fig. 1.3).

Figure 1.2 Map of the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary showing different forest ranges

Diversity and wildlife research

Wide array of vegetation types found in the sanctuary can be attributed to the high variation in the altitude, which has resulted in rich flora and fauna found in the sanctuary. Most of the recent studies in the

4 sanctuary were focused on flora, forest structure and on interactions with the indigenous forest dwellers. (Ramesh, 1989; Hegde et al., 1996; Shankar et al., 1996; Murali et al., 1996, 1998; Uma Shankar et al., 1998, 2004; Ganeshaiah et al., 1998; Bawa et al., 1999; Murali and

Figure 1.3 Major vegetation class of BRT Wildlife Sanctuary

Setty, 2001; Setty et al., 2001; Ganesan and Setty, 2004). At faunal level documenting couple of sight records of birds and importance of the birds in the sanctuary have been attempted (Karthikeyan et al., 1995; Aravind et al., 2001; Islam and Rahmani, 2004; Srinivasan and Prashanth, 2005, 2006), and compilation of sight records of Madras tree shrew (Anathana ellioti) has also been reported (Srinivasan et al., 2009). Barve et al. (2005) measured the threat distribution in the sanctuary and also attempted to map important areas that needed to be considered for management. Recently Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata came out with the documentation on fauna of all major 5 taxonomic groups for the sanctuary (Editor-Director, 2006), however the information was restricted to checklists for most of the taxonomic groups. Further, the checklists were prepared with little effort in a short period and many of the checklists are mere compilation of the sight records of researchers who have been doing research in the sanctuary for a long period. Hence, checklists or details on each taxonomic group are inadequate. From the body of available literature it appears that the scientific documentation on higher taxonomic groups like amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are negligible in the sanctuary.

People in the sanctuary

Amidst the sanctuary there are many human enclaves/enclosures and hamlets which include settlements of indigenous people, temple and private estates of commercial plantations (coffee, pepper, cardamom etc.). About 7000 indigenous people called 'Soligas', live in 57 settlements called 'Podus' in and on fringe of the sanctuary. Though they have small agricultural land and cultivate coffee and other crops, however they also extract NTFPs for their livelihood (Murali et al., 1998a, 1996). Since the Biligiri Rangaswamy temple is situated as an

6 enclosure inside the sanctuary, a small township has come up around the temple. In addition the wet forests were given on lease for cultivation of commercial crops. Due to this, a large number of people reside in these estates as workers and many of the tribal people work as estate workers. The high density of people in the sanctuary has resulted in high biotic pressure.

The present study

During our interaction, the park managers expressed the need for baseline data on mammals in the park, especially on occurrence, distribution and abundance of large mammals. Considering the above facts the proposal was prepared and the forest department raised the required fund for the study from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. With this support the present study was successfully carried out. Our parent institutions viz. National Institute of Advanced Studies and Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History extended their support to carry out the present study.

Objectives

1. To establish the distribution of large mammals (large herbivore mammals, arboreal mammals, small carnivore species and large carnivore species) in association with the forest types available in the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary

2. To evaluate the abundance of large mammals (large herbivore mammals and arboreal mammals) in the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary

Methods

We adopted three methods to address the proposed objectives. To estimate the density of large prey species line transect method was followed. The sampling was designed to represent all available habitat types and administrative units, giving equal weightage for both spatial and temporal replications. Details of the method are provided in Chapter IV. To understand the abundance of the large mammals in different forest ranges and forest types, we computed the encounter rate for each species and represented them as number of sightings per 7 km, since the detections for each species from line transect walks was not enough (less detections) to estimate the density for different forest types and forest ranges. The animal sightings on line transect collected by single observer for longer period and multiple observers in three days simultaneous walk on all transects were pooled to estimate the encounter rate (see Chapter III). Some of the species which are strictly nocturnal could not be assessed for their abundance during the day transect walk and hence we conducted night surveys to find the occurrence and assess the abundance of such species in the sanctuary. The abundance of nocturnal mammals is presented as encounter rate (animals sighted/km) (see Chapter III). Since all the species were unable to be covered using above methods and to understand the occurrence and distribution pattern of all the species, we laid about ten 10 m radius plots per beat for detection of secondary signs and droppings. In each plot a thorough search was made for secondary signs like foot prints or faecal deposits. The GPS coordinates were taken for each plot. Apart from the plot data, incidental sight records were also maintained with coordinates and data collected during the transect walks and scat records collected during the tiger census were used to prepare the distribution maps (see Chapter II).

The Report

The present study attempted to document the inventory of large mammals and estimate the density of large herbivore species for the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary. Forest ranges were considered as a minimum unit to understand the mammalian distribution and abundance for the management. Chapter I has addressed the need of present study and the framework for the project while Chapter II addresses the occurrence and distribution pattern of different species. This information is based on our overall effort in the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary for seven months. Species distribution is also discussed in association with different forest types and forest ranges. We have calculated the encounter rate for large mammals and nocturnal mammals and the same are discussed in Chapter III. To identify conservation-priorities for any park, the carrying capacity of the park and current status of prey and predator populations are very crucial and hence we estimated the prey density for the park using transect walks made for a long period

8 and have discussed the same in Chapter IV. BRT Wildlife Sanctuary forms a part of the major elephant reserve in south India and density estimates are very essential to know the status of species in the sanctuary - Chapter V presents the status of distribution and density of

References

Aravind, N.A., Dinesh Rao. and Madhusudan, P.S. (2001). Additions to the birds of Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats, India. Zoos' Print Journal, 27(7): 541-547. Barve, N., Kiran, M.C., Vanaraj, G., Aravind, N.A., Rao, D., UmaShankar, R., Ganeshaiah, K.N. and Poulsen, J.G. (2005). Measuring and mapping threats to a Wildlife Sanctuary in southern India. Conservation Biology, 19: 122-130. Bawa, K.S., Lele, S., Murali, K.S. and Ganesan, B. (1999). 'Extraction of non-timber forest products in Biligiri Rangan Hills, India: Monitoring a community- based project'. Pp: 89-102, in Saterson, K., Margolius, R. and Salafsky, N. (eds.), Measuring Conservation Impact: An Interdisciplinary Approach To Project Monitoring And Evaluation. Biodiversity Support Program. World Wildlife Fund, Inc. Washington D. C., USA. Editor-Director. (2006). Fauna of Biligiri Rangaswamy Wildlife Sanctuary, Conservation Area Series, 27. The Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. Ganesan, R and Setty, R.S. (2004). Regeneration of Amla, an important non-timber forest from south India. Conservation and Society, 2:365-375. Ganeshaiah, K.N. and UmaShankar, R. (1998). BRT sanctuary: a biogeographic bridge of the Deccan Plateau. Pp 4-6, in Ganeshaiah, K.N. and Uma Shankar, R. (eds.), Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary: natural history, biodiversity and conservation. Ashoka Trust for Research in Geology and the Environment and Vivekananda Girijana Kalyanakendra, Bangalore, India. Ganeshaiah, K.N., Uma Shaanker, R., Murali, K.S. and Bawa, K.S. (1998). 'Extraction of non-timber forest products in the forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. 5. Influence of dispersal mode on species response to NTFP extraction'. Economic Botany, 52: 316-319. Hegde, R., Suraprakash, S., Achot, L., Lele, S. and Bawa, K.S. (1996). 'Extraction of non-timber forest products in the forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. 1. Contribution to rural income'. Economic Botany, 50: 243-250. Islam, Z. and Rahmani, A.R. (2004). Important Bird Areas in India: Priority areas for conservation. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, BirdLife International, UK and Oxford University Press, Mumbai. Karthikeyan, S., Prasad, J.N. and Srinivasa, T.S. (1995). Yellow throated Bulbul Pycnonotus xantholaemus at Biligirirangana Hills, Karnataka. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 92:123-124. Management Plan (2008). Management plan of the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary for 2008-2017. Chamarajanagar wildlife division, Chamarajanagar.

9 Mani, M.S. (1974). Ecology and Biogeography in India. Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers, The Hauge. Murali, K.S., Shankar, U., Shaanker, R.U., Ganeshaiah, K.N. and Bawa, K.S. (1996). 'Extraction of non-timber forest products in the forests of the Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. 2. Impact of NTFP extraction on regeneration, population structure, and species composition'. Economic Botany, 50: 251-269. Murali, K.S. and Setty, R.S. (2001). Effects of weeds Lantana camera and Chromelina odorata growth on the species diversity, regeneration and stem density of tree and shrub layer in BRT sanctuary. Current Science, 80: 675-678. Murali, K.S., Setty, R.S., Ganeshaiah, K.N. and Shaankar, R.U. (1998). Does forest type classification reflect spatial dynamics of vegetation? An analysis using GIS techniques. Current science, 75:220-227. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403:853- 858. Ramesh, B.R. (1989). Flora of Biligirirangan Hills. Ph.D. thesis. Madras, University, Madras, India. Setty R.S., Bawa K.S. and Bommaiah, J. (2001). Participatory research monitoring for non-timber forest products in Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple wildlife sanctuary, Karnataka, India. Pp. 85-88, in Ganeshaiah, K.N., Shanker, R.U., Bawa, K.S. (eds.), Tropical Ecosystems: Structure, Diversity and Human Welfare. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Shankar, U., Murali, K.S., Shaanker, R.U., Ganeshaiah, K.N. and Bawa, K.S. (1996). 'Extraction of non-timber forest products in the forests of Biligiri RanganHills, India 3. Productivity, extraction and prospects of sustainable harvest of Nelli (Amla) (Emblica officinalis)', Economic Botany, 50: 270- 279. Srinivasan, U. and Prashanth, N.S. (2005). Additions to the Avifauna of the Biligirirangans. Indian Birds. 1(5): 104. Srinivasan, U. and Prashanth, N. S. (2006). Preferential routes of bird dispersal to the Western Ghats in India: An explanation for the avifaunal peculiarities of the Biligirirangan Hills. Indian Birds 2 (4): 114–119. Srinivasan, U., Prashanth, N.S., Lakshminarayanan, S., Varma, K., Karthikeyan, S., Vellal, S., Cavale, G., Mandanna, D., Ross, P. and Thapa. (2009). Occurrence of the Madras tree shrew Anathana ellioti (Waterhouse) (Scandentia: Tupaiidae) in the Biligirirangan Hills, Karnataka, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 1: 283-286. Uma Shaanker, R., Ganeshaiah, K.N., Nageswara Rao, M. and Aravind, N. A. (2004). 'Ecological consequences of forest use-from genes to ecosystem: a case study in the Biligiri Ranganswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary, South India'. Conservation and Society, 2: 347-364. Uma Shaanker, R., Hegde, R. and Bawa, K.S. (1998). 'Extraction of non-timber forest products in the forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. 6. Fuel wood pressure and management options'. Economic Botany, 52: 320-336.

10 Chapter II Occurrence and distribution of mammals

Introduction

Increasing human population all over the world, especially in the tropical countries, has caused the loss of vegetation cover and potential habitats, which in turn has affected animal distributions. Furthermore it has resulted in an uneven and highly clumped distribution of animals (Myers et al., 2000). Habitat loss due to human activities is the leading cause of species extinction (Pimm and Raven, 2000) and along with this, game hunting and poaching of wild animals have also contributed to uneven distribution of animals as well as other specie's extinction. Awareness regarding the effect of human interference on natural processes led to the development of conservation and management strategies in order to retain and restore remaining wildlife and its habitats. For the past one hundred years there has been acceleration in the loss of wildlife, especially of the mammalian species in India. Although a few steps have been initiated from time to time to protect wildlife, it was only in 1972, that a comprehensive act was promulgated (Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972). One of the most significant outcomes of this act was the declaration of a large number of Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks (Bisht, 1995), which today form the Protected Area Network. Many areas were considered to form a protected area network based on the report by Rodgers and Panwar (1988). The Protected Area network was proposed and developed based on the existing knowledge on both landscapes and wildlife. Once Protected Areas are created, the monitoring of the population status of flora and fauna is equally crucial to understand the impact of management. But in reality even the species occurrence data is not available for many protected areas and monitoring of a species is beyond the management practice. In most of the cases the distribution data on many of the species is not well known (Peterson et al., 2002). The increase in human population and access to fire arms and forest resources has resulted in indiscriminate hunting in most of the forests resulting in disappearance of many species. Proper records on occurrence of mammalian species, their status, and distribution pattern with-in a given forest patch are not available for most parts of

11 the country. Due to lack of base-line data, park managers have not been able to demonstrate the proper management for the area or at the level of species management in some of the protected areas. There are many examples available - even after the protected areas were formed for the conservation of specific species, the targeted species have disappeared from the protected areas. To cite Singh and Kumara (2006) reported the near-disappearance of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from Melkote Temple Wildlife Sanctuary and Kumara and Raj (2007) reported the near-disappearance of Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps) from Ranibennur Blackbuck Sanctuary. Thus baseline data and monitoring of populations of major species are very crucial in the management practice. As we have pointed out in Chapter I, it was the lack of such data in BRT Wildlife Sanctuary that prompted us to document the occurrence and distribution of large mammals (excluding small rodents and Chiropterans) for the sanctuary.

a c

b H. N. Kumara a. Bonnet macaque b. Hanuman langur c. Slender loris

Methods

All the species cannot be located or estimated during the line transect walks and in a short period. We were able to sight many species using 12 various methods. We laid about ten 25 x 3 m plots per beat for secondary signs and droppings. In each plot a thorough search was made for secondary signs like foot prints or fecal deposits and the GPS coordinates were noted for each plot. Apart from the plot data, incidental sight records with coordinates, data collected during the day transect walks, night surveys and scat records collected during the tiger census were used to prepare the distribution map (see Chapter II).

Results

The occurrence of all possible mammals in different forest ranges and forest types are provided in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2. Of the 34 species listed in Table 2.1, 30 species were sighted during the study and one species was confirmed by secondary information. No information was available on occurrence of Indian gray wolf Canis lupus pallipes, otter spp. and striped hyena Hyaena hyaena. All the arboreal mammals including Hanuman langur Semnopithecus entellus, bonnet macaque Macaca radiata, Indian giant squirrel Ratufa indica and Common Giant flying squirrel Petaurista petaurista were sighted in all the forest ranges but restricted to the forests with good canopy (Fig. 2.1-2.4). Slender loris Loris lydekkerianus was recorded from dry forests and disturbed in the moist deciduous forests of Punjur and Bylore forest ranges (Fig. 2.5).

a b a. Flying squirrel b. Giant squirrel

13 Table 2.1 Occurrence of mammals in different Forest Ranges of BRT Wildlife Sanctuary

Species IUCN Forest ranges status K. Gudi Yelandur Punjur Bylore Kollegal H anuman langur (Semnopithecus LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) entellus) Bonnet macaque (Macaca LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) radiata) Slender loris (Loris lydekkerianus) LC N N P (1) P (1) N Tiger (Panthera tigris) EN P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Leopard (P. pardus) NT P (1) P (1) P (1) P (3) P (1) Jungle cat (Felis chaus) LC P (3) P (1) P (3) P (1) P (1) Leopard cat (Prionalilurus LC P (3) P (1) P (3) P (3) P (1) bengalensis) Rusty spotted cat (Prionalilurus VU P (1) P (1) P(1) N N rubiginosus) Indian gray w olf (Canis lupus LC N N N N N pallipes) Dhole (Cuon alpinus) EN P (1) P (1) P (1) P (2, 3) P (2,3) Go lden jackal (Canis aureus) N P (1) N P (1) P (1) Bengal fox (Vulpes bengalensis) LC P (1) N N N N Small Indian civet (Viverricula LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) indica) Asian palm civet (Paradoxurus LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) hermophroditus) Stripe-necked mo ngoose LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (3) P (3) (Herpestes v itticollis) C ommon mongo ose (H. edw ardsi) LC P (1) P (1) N P (1) N Ruddy mongoose (H. smithii) LC P (1) P (1) N N P (1) Otter spp N N N N N M alabar giant squirrel (Ratufa NT P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) indica) C ommon Giant flying squirrel LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) (Petaurista petaurista) Southern Red Muntjac (M untiacus LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) muntjak) White spotted Chevrotain LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (3) P (1) (Tragulus meminna) Indian w ild pig (Sus scrofa) LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) C hithal (Axis axis) LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Sambar (Cervus unico lor) VU P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Gaur (Bo s gaurus) VU P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Elephant (Elephas maximus) EN P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Four-horned antelope VU P (1) P (1) P (2, 3) P (2) P (1) (Tetracerus quadricornis) Blackbuc k (Antilope cervicarpa) NT P (1) P (1) N N N Indian crested Porcupine (Hystrix LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) indica) Thick-tailed Pangolin (Manis NT N N N N N crassicaudata) Sloth bear (M elursus ursinus) VU P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Striped hyena (H yaena hyaena) NT N N N N N Black-naped hare (Lepus LC P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) nigricollis)

P : Present; N : No Information

EN : Endangered; VU : Vulnerable; NT : Near threatened; LC : Least concern; DD : Data deficient 1: Sighted; 2 : Fecal deposit; 3 : Local information

14 Table 2.2 Occurrence of mammals in major forest types of BRT Wildlife Sanctuary

Species Forest type EF MDF DD SF Hanuman langur (Semnopithecus entellus) P (1) P (1) P (1) - Bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata) P (1) P (1) P (1) - Slender loris (Loris lydekkerianus) - - P (1) P (1) Tiger (Panthera tigris) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (2) Leopard (P. pardus) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (2) Jungle cat (Felis chaus) P (4) P (4) P (1) P (1) Leopard cat (Prionalilurus bengalensis) P (1) P (1) P (4) N Rusty spotted cat (Prionalilurus rubiginosus) P (1) P (1) P (1) N Indian gray wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) - - - N Dhole (Cuon alpinus) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Golden jackal (Canis aureus) N N P (1) P (1) Bengal fox (Vulpes bengalensis) - - N P (1) Small Indian civet (Viverricula indica) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Asian palm civet (Paradoxurus P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) hermophroditus) Stripe-necked mongoose P (1) P (1) P (1) - (Herpestes vitticollis) Common mongoose (H. edwardsi) N N P (1) P (1) Ruddy mongoose (H. smithii) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Otter spp N N N N Indian giant squirrel (Ratufa indica) P (1) P (1) P (1) - Common Giant flying squirrel (Petaurista P (1) P (1) P (1) - petaurista) Southern Red Muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) White spotted Chevrotain (Tragulus P (1) P (1) P (1) N meminna) Indian wild pig (Sus scrofa) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Chithal (Axis axis) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Sambar (Cervus unicolor) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Gaur (Bos gaurus) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Elephant (Elephas maximus) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Four-horned antelope - - P (1) P (1) (Tetracerus quadricornis) Blackbuck (Antilope cervicarpa) - - - P (1) Indian crested Porcupine (Hystrix indica) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (2,3,4) Thick-tailed Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) N N P (4) N Sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) Striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena) N N N N Black-naped hare (Lepus nigricollis) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (1) P : Present; N : No Information 1: Sighted; 2 : Fecal deposit; 3 : Body parts; 4 : Local information

15 16

Figure 2.1. A map showing the sightings Figure 2.2. A map showing the sightings of Hanuman langur in BRT WLS of bonnet macaque in BRT WLS Figure 2.3. A map showing the sightings Figure 2.4. A map showing the sightings of Indian giant squirrel in BRT WLS of common giant flying squirrel in BRT WLS 17 18

Figure 2.5. A map showing the sightings Figure 2.6. A map showing the sightings and scat of slender loris in BRT WLS recordings of dhole in BRT WLS a

b

Figure 2.7. A map showing the sightings and scat recordings of tiger in BRT WLS a. Tiger b. Dhole 19 20

Figure 2.8. A map showing the sightings and Figure 2.9. A map showing the sightings and scat recordings of leopard in BRT WLS scat recordings of sloth bear in BRT WLS Figure 2.10. A map showing the sightings Figure 2.11. A map showing the sightings of jungle cat in BRT WLS of rusty spotted cat in BRT WLS 21 22

a

Vijay Mohan Raj b

Figure 2.12. A map showing the sightings B. S. Dinesh of leopard cat in BRT WLS a. Leopard b. Sloth bear a

b

c

Figure 2.13. A map showing the sightings of Indian fox in BRT WLS a. Jungle Cat b. Leopard Cat c. Rusty Spotted Cat 23 24

Figure 2.14. A map showing the sightings Figure 2.15. A map showing the sightings of small Indian civet in BRT WLS of Asian palm civet in BRT WLS Figure 2.16. A map showing the sightings Figure 2.17. A map showing the sightings of striped-necked mongoose in BRT WLS of ruddy mongoose in BRT WLS 25 26

a

b

Figure 2.18. A map showing the sightings of chevrotain in BRT WLS a. Porcupine b. Chevrotain Figure 2.19. A map showing the sightings and pellet piles Figure 2.20. A map showing the sightings of four-horned antelope in BRT WLS of porcupine in BRT WLS 27 A total of 73 grids (of 10 km2) were laid on the map of the sanctuary. Since one of the grids largely occupied the private estate area, 72 grids were considered for estimation of area occupied by each large carnivore species. The data on direct sightings and properly differentiated data of scats were used to map the distribution pattern of large carnivores. Though the four species of large carnivores were found in all the forest types of all the forest ranges (Table 2.1 and 2.2), tiger and sloth bear were found almost in all the beats or found in more than 90% of the sanctuary area, while leopard and dhole were observed to have patchy distribution in the sanctuary (Fig. 2.6 - 2.9).

a b

c

a. Common mongoose b. Ruddy mongoose c. Stripe-necked mongoose

We sighted all three small cats in the sanctuary. While jungle cat Felis chaus and rusty spotted cat Prionalilurus rubiginosus were recorded in deciduous and scrub forest (Fig. 2.10-2.11), leopard cat Prionalilurus bengalensis was recorded in moist deciduous forests (Fig. 2.12). Jackal Canis aureus and fox Vulpes bengalensis were restricted to marginal areas of the sanctuary, where fox was found to inhabit the open scrub forests of Suvarnavathi backwater (Fig. 2.13). Small Indian civet Viverricula indica and Asian palm civet Paradoxurus hermophroditus were recorded in all the forest types (Fig. 2.14-2.15), while striped- necked mongoose Herpestes vitticollis (Fig. 2.16) and ruddy mongoose H. smithii (Fig. 2.17) were not recorded from scrub forest and evergreen

28 forest respectively. Herbivore species show uniform distribution in all the forest types and in all the forest ranges except chevrotain Tragulus meminna which was not recorded from scrub forests (Fig. 2.18) and four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis and blackbucks Antilope cervicarpa were restricted to drier forests in the foot hills (Fig. 2.19). Though we did not sight the porcupine Hystrix indica in scrub forests, it showed a wide distribution in the sanctuary (Fig. 2.20). We did not sight the pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) in the sanctuary, although Mr. Boraiah, RFO, revealed the capture of one animal from Arepalya of Kollegal forest range by local people. This was later confiscated and released back in the forest. This confirms the presence of pangolin in the sanctuary. a b

a. Fox b. Jackle Discussion

The undulating terrain and diverse vegetation type determined the distribution pattern of many species. Primates and giant squirrels have adapted to live in forests with good canopies, and feed on fruits, flowers, seeds, leaves and insects from the trees. If the forest is fragmented and canopy contiguity is absent then giant squirrels may avoid moving between the fragments. However primates can still come down and move between the fragments, hence primates were found even in small woody patches in the scrub or degraded forests.

Slender lorises in south India include two subspecies viz., Malabar slender loris Loris lydekkerianus lydekkerianus and Mysore slender 29 loris Loris lydekkerianus malabaricus. Malabar slender loris is restricted to the evergreen forests on western slopes of the Western Ghats, while the other subspecies is restricted to the dry forests of Eastern Ghats, deccan plateau and southern plains. The loris subspecies found in the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary is Mysore slender loris and is a first sight record for the sanctuary. Sightings are restricted to the dry forests of the southern part of the sanctuary which raises several questions on our understanding of the distribution pattern of the lorises. Kumara et al. (2006) reported that the southernmost sightings were at north of Kaveri river in Bengaluru and Tumkur districts, however the modeled niche for the Mysore slender loris shows drier forests of the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary as possible habitat (Kumara et al., 2009). The present sighting of slender loris not only confirms the prediction and is also the western most sighting of their distribution range in the state. Further exploration in Sathyamanagala forests and M. M. hills will throw more light on their population contiguity and distribution pattern.

Tiger appears to be the dominant carnivore species in the sanctuary than leopard and dhole. Though the range of dhole appears to be much lesser than the other carnivores, it does not mean that they have smaller range in the sanctuary. They may be in low abundance and covering much larger area since their principal prey species (chital Axis axis) shows clumped distribution and high abundance in drier forests and since the data is from a short period and single season, the projected area may be underestimated. Conversely leopards were restricted to buffer region of the sanctuary than the core area where the chital abundance is very high (see Chapter III). Sloth bear appears to have wider distribution except in some drier plains. However all the four carnivore species are quite adaptable and survive in large variety of habitats, provided availability of good resource and suitable habitat. Wolf was thought to be present in the larger area in the state, including marginal areas of the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary (Shahi, 1982). However wolf-ranges have shrunk in the state and the species may have probably disappeared from the surrounding areas of the sanctuary (Singh and Kumara, 2006). During the present study we could not obtain any information on hyena, however our interviews with the Soliga people suggests possible occurrence of the species in the southern drier forests of the sanctuary. 30 The rusty spotted cat was sighted in the sanctuary for the first time (there is no previous records of sighting). There have only been few sight records of the rusty spotted cat in the state (Kumara and Singh, 2007) and since the attempts for proper exploration of the species is minimal, our understanding of the species is also minimal.

Since herbivore species which include elephant Elephas maximus, gaur Bos gaurus, sambar Cervus unicolor, chital and muntjac Muntiacus muntjak are relatively generalist species, they do occur in all the forest types. Conversely antelopes have adapted to live in open wooded forests where they can see for longer distance and run. Since the moist decidous and dry decidous forest at high altitude of BRT Wildlife Sanctuary are infested with lantana therefore both blackbuck and four- horned antelopes are restricted to the foot hills with open deciduous and scrub forests.

Four -horned antelope References

Bisht, R.S (1995). National Parks of India. Publication Division, Ministry of Information andbroadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi. Kumara, H.N. and Singh, M. (2007). Small carnivores of Karnataka: Distribution and sight records. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 104:155-162. Kumara, H.N. and Raj, V.M. (2007). The Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps: are they disappearing in Karnataka? Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 104:211-212. Kumara, H.N., Irfan-Ullah, M. and Kumar, S. (2009). Mapping potential distribution of slender loris subspecies in peninsular India. Endangered Species Research, 7:29-38.

31 Kumara, H.N., Singh, M. and Kumar, S. (2006). Distribution, habitat correlates and conservation of slender loris Loris lydekkerianus in Karnataka, India. International Journal of Primatology, 27:941-969. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403:853- 858. Peterson, A. T., Stockwell, D. R. B. and Kluza, D. A. (2002). Distributional prediction based on ecological niche modeling of primary occurrence data. Pp. 617-623, in Scott, J.M., Heglund, P.J. and Morrison, M.L. (eds.), Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Scale and Accuracy. Island Press, Washington, D.C Pimm, S. and Raven, P. (2000). Extinction by numbers. Nature, 403, 843-845. Rodgers, W.A. and Panwar, H.S. (1988). Planning wildlife protected area network in India (Volume I and II). A report prepared for the Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, Government of India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Shahi, S.P. (1982). Status of gray wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) in India: A preliminary survey. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 79:493-502. Singh, M. and Kumara, H.N. (2006). Distribution, status and conservation of Indian gray wolf Canis lupus pallipes in Karnataka, India. Journal of Zoology, 270:164-169.

32 Chapter III Relative abundance of mammals

Introduction

Accelerated forest conversion and degradation are the major threats to tropical forests and the animals they support (Lanly, 1982; Brown and Lugo, 1990; Strushaker, 1997). Very few large forest complexes (large extent of forests) exist in the tropical countries, thus many species in the tropics are either patchily distributed or endemic (Strushaker, 1975; Richards, 1996). Even within such forests the baseline data on conservation status of flora and fauna is not available, since in countries like India scientific exploration is not mandatory in forest management. This has been a major issue of concern as lack of biodiversity information results in deficient conservation and management plans.

To manage the park, data on abundance of the species is important and its habitat association at the Forest Range level also needs to be studied, since Range is a major responsible administrative unit within a park. The estimate of density (number of animals per km²) is a better indicator than any other indices and to achieve this we had laid representative number of line transects for every forest range and had walked all of them. However, minimum detections required at the range level for a good estimate of density for large herbivore species was not achieved. Thus in this chapter we have used the encounter rate of each species (mean sighting/km) to compare between forest ranges and forest types. We also present the data from night surveys to show the abundance of some elusive and strictly nocturnal mammals, which are often ignored from both management and scientific documentation.

Methods

To understand the abundance of large mammals in different forest ranges and forest types, we computed the encounter rate for each species and represented them as number of sightings per km. During the tiger estimation program, many volunteers were trained for data collection along-with the local forest department personnel and these volunteers and forest personnel were made to collect data on

33 occurrence of scats of large carnivore species for three days and also data on large mammal sightings on transects for the other three days. We used the animal sightings on line transects collected for longer period (more details are provided in Chapter II) and also data collected by many volunteers in three days of simultaneous walk on all transects were pooled to estimate the encounter rate. ANOVA was used to compare the mean sightings per km between the forest ranges and forest types.

Some of the species which are strictly nocturnal by nature, could not be assessed for their abundance during the day transect walks, hence we conducted night surveys to find the occurrence and abundance of such species in the sanctuary. We selected existing motorable roads in the sanctuary and each road was traveled consecutively for two days between 19.00 to 24.00 hrs. During this exercise the jeep was driven at a speed of 10 km/hr, and an observer sitting atop on the jeep used a flash light connected to the jeep to sight the nocturnal animals. Once the animal was spotted by an eye shine, animals were differentiated based on the colour of the reflection from eyes, distance between the eyes and size; if the animal was far from the observer then a binocular was used to identify the species. The distance covered was documented using the vehicle odometer or known distance of each route. The abundance of nocturnal animals was presented as encounter rate (animals/km).

Results

A total of 795.5 km transect walk was made by an observer for a long period and during the tiger estimation program 258 km of transect walk was made by many observers in three days. Though all the species shows slight difference in the mean encounter rate (sightings/km) between the two observations, the difference was not significant (Fig. 3.1). Thus, for better understanding and to increase the precision level, data from both the observations were pooled for further analysis.

The mean encounter rate of gaur (0.11±0.14), sambar (0.22±0.17), chital (0.14±0.17), Muntjac (0.15±0.18), four-horned antelope (0.007±0.02), wild pig (0.04±0.10), Hanuman langur (0.10±0.17) and

bonnet macaque (0.02±0.08) differed significantly (F7, 600 = 21.456, p < 0.001) (Fig. 3.2). The encounter rate of sambar was the highest followed

34 by muntjac, chital, gaur and Hanuman langur, while four-horned antelope, wild pig and bonnet macaque were found in very low abundance. The presence of forest type in each administrative forest ranges varied; hence the abundance of each species was also expected to vary between the forest ranges. Therefore we present the data on mean encounter rate for all the species for each forest ranges.

Figure 3.1 Mean encounter rate of large prey species between single (blue) and multiple (orange) observers in BRT Wildlife Sanctuary

Figure 3.2 Mean encounter rate of large prey species in the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary 35 The mean encounter rate of some species did not differ between the

forest ranges viz. gaur (F4, 71 = 1.962, p = 0.110), Hanuman langur (F4, 71 =

1.783, p = 0.142) and bonnet macaque (F4, 71 = 1.686, p = 0.163). However, the mean encounter rate of gaur was higher in Yelandur (0.15±0.17) and Punjur (0.15±0.18) than other forest ranges, while the mean encounter rate of Hanuman langur in Punjur (0.17 ± 0.19), and bonnet macaque in Yelandur (0.05± 0.09) was higher than in other forest ranges. Conversely the mean encounter rate of some species

significantly differed between the forest ranges viz. sambar (F4, 71 =

4.523, p = 0.01), chital (F4, 71 = 6.379, p = 0.001), muntjac (F4, 71 = 3.370, p

= 0.01), four-horned antelope (F4, 71 = 2.478, p = 0.05) and wild pig (F4, 71 = 3.001, p = 0.05). The mean encounter rate of sambar in Punjur (0.34 ± 0.15), Kollegal (0.25 ± 0.18) and K. Gudi (0.22 ± 0.15); chital in K. Gudi (0.23 ± 0.17) and Punjur (0.24 ± 0.19); muntjac in Yelandur (0.28 ± 0.23) and wild pig in Punjur (0.11 ± 0.14) was higher than in other forest ranges for respective species.

a. Gaur b. Sambar

c. Chital d. Four-horned antelope

36

e. Muntjac f. Indian wild pig

g. Hanuman langur h. Bonnet macaque

Figure 3.3 Mean encounter rate of large prey species in different forest ranges a b

a. Gaur b. Sambar 37 Though diverse vegetation types occur in the sanctuary, we broadly classified them as evergreen forest (high elevation shola and grassland, semi-evergreen and evergreen forests), moist deciduous forests, dry deciduous forests and scrub forests. Accordingly, data on encounter rate for all the species were pooled and the mean encounter rate was computed to understand the habitat association of each species to different vegetation types (Fig. 3.4). The mean encounter rate of many

species differed significantly between the vegetation types (gaur: F3, 72 =

6.191, p = 0.001, sambar: F3, 72 = 2.837, p = 0.05, muntjac: F3, 72 = 6.160, p

= 0.001, chital: F3, 72 = 3.750, p = 0.05, Hanuman langur: F3, 72 = 10.176, p

= 0.001 and bonnet macaque: F3, 72 = 6.905, p = 0.001) except four-

horned antelope (F3, 72 = 1.477, p = 0.23) and wild pig (F3, 72 = 0.955, p = 0.419). The mean encounter rate of each species varied highly between different vegetation types, further some of the species were restricted to certain vegetation types (e.g. four-horned antelopes were sighted only in dry deciduous forests and scrub forests, wild pigs were not sighted in scrub forests, bonnet macaques were sighted only in evergreen and moist deciduous forests). The mean encounter rate of gaur (0.25±0.21) and sambar (0.39±0.11) in evergreen forest was more than in the other forest types, further the mean encounter rate gradually declined towards the dry forests (Fig. 3.4), where the mean encounter rate of chital in scrub forests (0.3±0.19) was higher than in other vegetation types, and muntjac in moist deciduous forests (0.25±0.21) and evergreen forests (0.24±0.17) was higher than the dry forests. The mean encounter rate of Hanuman langur and bonnet macaque was much higher in the evergreen forests (HL: 0.23±0.24, BM: 0.04±0.07) and moist deciduous forests (HL: 0.19±0.16, BM: 0.06±0.08) than in other forests types.

a. Gaur b. Sambar 38 c. Chital d. Muntjac

e. Four-horned antelope f. Indian wild pig a b

a. Chital b. Muntjac 39 g. Hanuman langur h. Bonnet macaque

During the 462 km of night surveys, we sighted five species of small carnivores viz. jungle cat, leopard cat, rusty spotted cat, small Indian civet and Asian palm civet, and four species of other mammals viz. slender loris, common giant flying squirrel, white spotted chevrotain and Indian crested porcupine (Table 3.3). Since many of them are elusive and very shy, the rate of detection was less and hence the present findings should be considered as a relative index rather than absolute abundance. Nevertheless, present findings throw some light on few aspects of species including association of species with forest types and identification of good population for some species.

Table 3.3 Relative abundance (mean sighting/km with standard deviation) of elusive nocturnal mammals (effort during night trail of 462 km)

Species N EF MDF DDF SF Overall

Small Carnivore species Jungle cat 8 0 0 0.04±o.08 0.12±0.17 0.03±0.07 Leopard cat 3 0 0.02±0.04 0 0 0.006±0.02 Rusty spotted cat 11 0 0.01±0.02 0.03±0.05 0 0.02±0.04 Small Indian civet 22 0 0.05±0.05 0.05±0.06 0 0.04±0.05 Asian palm civet 50 0.09±0.08 0.13±0.08 0.14±0.15 0 0.12±0.12

Other mammals

Slender loris 4 0 0 0.01±0.04 0 0.009±0.03

Common Giant flying squirrel 51 0.17±0.29 0.16±0.17 0.06±0.08 0 0.1±0.15

White spotted Chevrotain 42 0.06±0.10 0.06±0.07 0.11±0.18 0 0.08±0.14 Indian crested Porcupine 15 0.09±0.08 0.05±0.06 0.04±0.08 0 0.04±0.07

N: number of sightings; EF: evergreen forest; MDF: moist deciduous forest; DDF: dry deciduous forest; SF: scrub forest 40 Among the small carnivores, Asian palm civet was commonly found in the entire sanctuary (0.12±0.12) except in scrub forests, while jungle cat was encountered in dry forests but found in low abundance (0.03±0.07). Surprisingly we encountered good number of rusty spotted cats especially in the dry forests and a few in the moist forests of K. Gudi forest range. On the other hand leopard cats were encountered less (0.006±0.02) in the sanctuary. Among other mammals giant flying squirrel (0.1±0.15) and chevrotain (0.08±0.14) were encountered more than the slender loris and porcupine. However the slender loris sightings were only from deciduous forests and disturbed moist deciduous forests, while the other animals were sighted in all forest types except the scrub forests.

Wild pig

Discussion

Elevation in the five forest ranges of BRT Wildlife Sanctuary shows high variation between 600 m asl to 1400 m asl, accordingly vegetation also varied from open scrub or open wooded deciduous forest at lower elevation to moist deciduous forests, evergreen forests with shola and grass land towards higher elevation. The abundance of some species statistically did not differ between the forest ranges and one of the possible reasons could be the high variation in sightings within a range. For example four-horned antelope, Hanuman langur and bonnet macaque show high variation in the sightings both within and between the forest ranges. Nevertheless, the presence of diverse habitats in all 41 the forest ranges favored homogeneous encounter rate of few species e.g. gaur. Species like chital and muntjac have shown significant variation in relative encounter rate between the forest ranges that may be due to the proportion of suitable habitat available in the range. Gaur and sambar have adapted to browse and graze, while the chital is typically a grazer. The availability of browse and grass in the forests determines the habitat preferred by these species. The relative abundance of gaur and sambar decreases from wet forests to dry forests, where the relative abundance of chital increases in other way since the grass is more available in the open forests than the moist forests with thick lantana in the sanctuary. Muntjac appears to be solitary in nature (Karanth and Sunquist, 1992), hence probably preferred closed canopy forests than open forests.

Primates and giant squirrels are canopy living animals indeed and hence evergreen forests and moist deciduous forests hold good populations than deciduous and scrub forests. However they are highly adaptable species and occur in scrub forests of plains to human dominated landscapes (Kumara et al., 2010). In that case the reason for their absence or low abundance in dry deciduous forests and scrub forests can be attributed to the presence of good number of predator species especially leopard which can climb trees and prey on the arboreal mammals.

Slender loris is less abundant in the sanctuary and restricted to the drier forests. The habitat of Mysore slender loris also includes dry deciduous and scrub forests of the Eastern Ghats and deccan plateau (Kumara et al., 2006). The low abundance could be attributed to the periphery of the distribution range on western side in the state of Karnataka, however this requires a further exploration.

Kumara and Singh (2007) reviewed the sight records of rusty spotted cat for the state which showed three to four records in the last three decades. The abundance was more in the deciduous and marginal forests. The eleven sightings of rusty spotted cat in the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary is a first record of significant sightings for any forests in

42 References

Brown, S. and Lugo, A.E. (1990). Tropical secondary forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 6: 1-32. Karanth, U. and Sunquist, M.E. (1992). Population structure , density and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 8: 21-35. Kumara, H.N. and Singh, M. (2007). Small carnivores of Karnataka: Distribution and sight records. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 104:155-162. Kumara, H.N., Singh, M. and Kumar, S. (2006). Distribution, habitat correlates and conservation of slender loris Loris lydekkerianus in Karnataka, India. International Journal of Primatology, 27:941-969. Kumara, H.N., Kumar, S. and Singh, M. (2010). Of how much concern are the least concern species? Distribution and conservation status of bonnet macaques, rhesus macaques and Hanuman langurs in Karnataka, India. Primate, 51: 37-42. Lanly, J.P. (1982). Tropical forest resources. Forestry paper 30. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome. Italy Richards, P. (1996). Fighting for the rain forest: War, Youth and resources in Sierra Leone. Heinemann Portsmouth, N.H. Strushsaker, T.T. (1975). The red colobus monkey. University of Chicago press. Chicago. Strushsaker, T T. (1997). Ecology of an African rain forest: Logging in Kibale and the conflict between conservation and exploitation. University presses of Florida. Gainesville.

43 Chapter IV Estimation of large herbivore densities

Introduction

BRT Wildlife Sanctuary is also part of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, which includes major protected areas viz., Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Bandipur National Park, Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary, Nagarahole (Rajiv Gandhi National Park). The entire stretch of forest complex is also part of an important elephant reserve i.e. Mysore Elephant Reserve with largest population of Asian elephants (Venkataraman et al., 2002). BRT wildlife sanctuary is also part of the forest complex which holds the largest population of tigers (Wikramanayake et al., 1988, 1999), hence the diversity and richness of large herbivore species would be expected to be good. The estimate of density for large herbivore species for few parks of the forest complex e.g. Mudumalai (Varman and Sukumar, 1995), Bandipur (Johnsingh, 1983; Karanth and Nichols, 2000) and Nagarahole (Karanath and Sunquist, 1992) shows that promising and relatively good prey base is available. Thus the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary which is also equally well protected and has large extent of diverse forests which is also expected to have similar prey base. The sanctuary has all the large predators of the region which includes tiger, leopard and dhole.

The population density and biomass of large herbivore species have been used to compare the carrying capacity of different habitats (Eisenberg and Seidensticker, 1976; Eisenberg, 1980), and the same plays an important role in deciding the population density of large carnivores, since they form a bulk of prey base. Karanth and Stith (1999) have demonstrated with modeling that prey depletion can lead to drastic decline in the tiger population size, thus the population size of prey and predator are interdependent. Maintenance of the healthy population of herbivore species is indeed required for the survival and maintenance of viable population of large carnivore species (Karanth and Sunquist, 1995; Sunquist et al., 1999; Karanth and Stith, 1999; Biswas and Sankar, 2002; Bagachi et al., 2003). This shows the need for data on density and biomass of large herbivore species from every potential forests and parks in the habitat of large carnivores using standard census methodology (Karanth and Sunquist, 1992;

45 Srikosamatara, 1993). This has been achieved for many parks in the country e.g. Bandipur, Pench, Kanha: Karanth and Nichols (2000), Nagarahole: Karanth and Sunquist (1992), Bhadra: Jathana et al. (2003), Mudumalai: Varman and Sukumar (1995), Gir: Khan et al. (1996), Ranthambore: Bagachi et al. (2003) and Pench: Biswas and Sankar (2002) and they have used statistically and biologically robust methods with the theoretical framework of distance sampling procedures (Burnham et al., 1980; Buckland et al., 1993, 2001). However such sets of data on density and biomass of herbivore species is lacking from many potential habitats in the country including Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary. Buckland et al. (2001) and Karanth et al. (2002) considered the standard line transect methodology applicable to large herbivores, within the frame work of distance sampling. We have carried out the study to estimate the density of large herbivore species in the sanctuary between October 2009 and April 2010, and the findings are presented in the present chapter.

Field methods and analysis

Number of transects were decided based on the vegetation types available in the sanctuary using GIS based administrative boundaries and vegetation maps. A total of 33 random line transects were laid, which represented all the forest types, altitudinal gradients and administrative units of the sanctuary. The length of transects were kept between 2 to 4 km totaling 93 km and each of them was walked a minimum of five times and maximum of eleven times between 06.00 to 10.00 hrs and 16.30 to 18.30 hrs. Transects were walked during a period of seven months from October 2009. We restricted the temporal replication since we increased the spatial replication and the total kilometers walked on transect lines was 795.5 km.

During transect walk, for every sighting of the animal, data on name of the species, number of individuals, animal to observer distance and angle of the detection from main bearing were collected. Observer to animal distance was measured using OPTI-LOGIC 1000 XL and OSPREY rangefinder and the angle of the detection from the line was collected using compass. When species were encountered in clusters (animals aggregating within 30 m radius: Karanth and Sunquist, 1992),

46 the distance and angle were recorded to the centre of each cluster. The coordinates were recorded for each sighting using GARMIN eTrex H and GARMIN 72 GPS units. Species identification was made using Prater (1971) and Menon (2003).

The data from transects were analysed using software DISTANCE and computed the estimate of density for each species. Since the number of detections was low for all the species, the estimate of density could not be performed at the level of Forest Range, hence the estimate of density for large herbivore species was performed for the sanctuary.

Figure 4.1 Map of BRT Wildlife Sanctuary showing the transects The data from temporal replicates were pooled and treated as a single sample (sample size = 33). Density estimates were carried out separately for each species using Distance program version-5 (Laake et al., 1998). The farthest sightings of the large herbivore species on transect were truncated to achieve a reliable density estimate (Buckland et al., 1993). However, the density estimates for all the

47 species were performed using both truncated and un-truncated data and those estimates were chosen which had minimum coefficient of variation for the final estimate. Checking for size bias in detection of animal clusters led to a non-significant regression equation at α = 0.10 for all the species (Drummer and McDonald, 1987) and hence the mean cluster size was used for analysis. Variances in encounter rates of animals between transect were estimated empirically (Buckland et al., 1993). The fit of possible alternative models to each specific dataset was judged using Akaike's information criterion (AIC) value and goodness of fit tests generated by program DISTANCE and the best possible model was selected. Encounter rate, average probability of detection, cluster density, cluster size and animal density were generated using the selected model in program DISTANCE.

Predators

Major prey and predators of BRT 48 Results

Since the distances (animal detection distance) were measured using the laser range finder, we considered the error rate of measurement as negligible. However most part of the forest of the sanctuary is covered with a carpet of invasive weed species Lantana camera (Murali and Setty, 2001) and further though the transects were straight the highly undulating terrain have some negative effect on the detection of animals from the transect line and this resulted in decreased effective strip width and 'heaping' of data in some of the species (Fig. 4.2). Heaping of data was observed for chital, Hanuman langur, wild pig, four-horned antelope and bonnet macaque. However, minimum detections for most of the species were achieved by increased spatial and temporal replications.

a. Gaur

b. Sambar

49 c. Chital

d. Muntjac

e. Wild pig

50 f. Four-horned antelope

g. Hanuman langur

h. Bonnet macaque

Figure 4.2 Un-truncated distance data for different large herbivore species

51 The estimated densities of individuals and groups for the eight large herbivore species along with sample size, mean cluster size, coefficient of variation and associated confidence intervals are summarized in Table 4.1. In terms of density of groups, muntjac is most dominant species and is followed by chital, sambar, bonnet macaque, gaur, Hanuman langur, four-horned antelope and wild pig. However estimate for four-horned antelope and wild pig is not good since the number of detections was negligible and the estimate may be biased with large coefficient of variation. In terms of density of individuals chital is most abundant followed by Hanuman langur, bonnet macaque, sambar, wild pig, gaur, muntjac and four-horned antelope.

Table 4.1 Density estimates from un-truncated data of prey species of large carnivores in the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary.

n- number of detections; g -density of clusters; Y- mean cluster size; - density of individuals; CV ( )- percent coefficient of variation; 95% CI - 95% confidence interval.

Species n g (km -2) (km -2) CV ( ) (%) 95% CI (km -2) Gaur 66 1.89 2.67 5.08 19.05 3.49-7.38 Sambar 155 3.42 1.76 6.01 12.75 4.67-7.74 Chital 72 3.54 3.94 13.96 21.25 9.17-21.27 Muntjac 131 3.67 1.01 3.70 18.36 2.56-5.34 Indian wild pig 13 1.62 3.27 5.33 33.48 2.72-10.45 Four-horned 9 1.77 1.38 2.44 19.93 1.63-3.67 antelope Hanuman langur 77 1.86 3.41 6.34 20.46 4.22-9.51 Bonnet macaque 43 2.27 2.88 6.56 25.63 3.97-10.83

Table 4.2 Biomass of prey species in BRT Wildlife Sanctuary S p ecie s W e ight in kg D en sity (km -2) B iom ass (k g km -2) T err estr ial lar ge he rb ivo res G aur 4 50 5.0 8 2 28 6 .0 0 S am b ar 13 4 6 .0 1 8 05 .34 C h ital 4 7 13 .96 6 56 .1 2 M un tjac 21 3 .70 77.70 Indian w ild p ig 3 2 5.3 3 1 70 .56 Fo ur-hor ned an telo p e 2 0 2 .4 4 4 8 .8 T ot al 3 6.5 2 4 04 4 .52 A rb oreal large he rb ivo res H anum an langur 9 6 .34 57.0 6 Bo nne t m acaq ue 4 6 .56 26 .2 4 T ot al 12 .9 0 8 3.3 O v e ral l 4 9.42 41 2 7 .8 2

52 The total large herbivore density was 49.42 animals km-2 that includes terrestrial herbivore density of 36.52 animals km-2 and arboreal herbivore density of 12.90 animals km-2. The density of large herbivore species when multiplied with the average weight (from Eisenberg and Seidensticker, 1976) of the respective species gave a density of biomass for each species (Table 4.2) and by addition of biomass of all the species gave a biomass density of 4127.82 kg km-2 for the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary.

Discussion

This is a first ever estimate of herbivore density in BRT Wildlife Sanctuary. Due to undulating terrain and less visibility due to lantana, we had to increase the effort to achieve the minimum detections required (40) to get a decent estimate (Burnham et al., 1980; Buckland et al., 1993), yet for some of the species the detections were lesser than the minimum requirement. The confidence interval was very narrow for density estimate for most of the species and coefficient of variation was around 20, thus the present estimate is good. Estimate of large herbivore density in the present study, when compared with those from the other parks in the country (Table 4.3) revealed that BRT Wildlife Sanctuary holds high density of muntjac, medium density of sambar and gaur, and very less density of chital and Hanuman langur. Nevertheless the density of sambar was on par or higher than the density in other parks of the same landscape (Bandipur and Nagarahole) and though the gaur density in BRT was rather lower than in these parks it shows a very promising density in the landscape. However, the density of large prey species is much better than the Bhadra Tiger Reserve.

High degree of undulating terrain and thick lantana decreases the grass availability for the grazers. Lantana is found from relatively high elevation dry deciduous forests to moist deciduous forests and evergreen forests and this may have restricted the grass availability to deciduous forests at foot hills and highly cleared moist deciduous forests in the K. Gudi. This habitat of the forest favored browsers (Eisenberg and Seidensticker, 1976) like gaur and sambar and wherever habitat heterogeneity (foot hills and lantana cleared forest of K. Gudi) is there, that favored grazers like chital. The lower density of

53 Hanuman langur may be due to hunting of the animal in the past. Local people and old forest department personnel revealed high hunting activities in the past by both tribal people and people from neighboring villages. Later the forests faced severe hunting pressure by a notorious elephant poacher namely Veerappan for more than two decades, during which period, protection and management of the forest was very weak. however after his death the protection and management of the sanctuary resumed the normal functioning and is effective. Thus the Hanuman langur in most of the areas of the sanctuary is very shy and lives in low density.

Table 4.3 Herbivore densities estimated in this and earlier studies in Indian forests

Location* Gaur Sambar Chital Muntjac Hanuman langur Nagarahole 9.6 5.5 50.6 4.2 23.8 Bandipur 7.0 5.6 20.1 0.7 NA Bhadra 1.48 0.89 4.51 3.64 22.6 BRT 5.08 6.01 13.96 3.70 6.34 Pench 0.7 9.6 51.3 NA NA Kanha NA 1.5 49.7 0.6 NA Ranthambore SA 17.15 31.0 SA 21.75 Gir SA 2.0 50.8 SA NA Mudumalai 0.5 6.61 25.03 NA NA

*Sources: Nagarahole: Karanth and Sunquist (1992); Bandipur, Pench, Kanha: Karanth and Nichols (2000); Bhadra: Jathanna et al. (2003); Ranthambore: Bagchi et al. (2003); Gir: Khan et al. (1996); Mudumalai: Varman and Sukumar (1995); BRT: Present Study. SA: Species absent; NA: No estimate available.

Blackbucks live in low abundance and are restricted to marginal areas and cropland in the periphery of the sanctuary and hence they were not sighted during the transect walk. The proportion of suitable habitat (open wooded forests like deciduous forests with opened canopy: Krishna et al., 2008) for four-horned antelope is much lesser in the sanctuary. Hence, the number of detections was less and the estimate may be biased, nevertheless the present estimate for four-horned antelope (2.44 km-2) shows presence of promising population in the sanctuary when compared to those estimates from Pench (0.7 km-2) (Karanth and Nichols, 1998) and Gir (0.42 km-2) (Khan et al., 1996). Since elephants and rhino rarely contribute to the diet of large carnivore species (Sunquist, 1981; Johnsingh, 1983; Karanth and Sunquist, 54 1995), the estimates of them were removed while comparing the prey biomass density between the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary and other parks in the country. Biomass density varied from as low as 1277.25 kg km-2 in Bhadra to 7638 kg km-2 in Nagarahole (Table 4.4). Seven parks in the country support more than 4000 kg km-2 of prey biomass viz. Nagarahole, Ranthambore, Pench, Bandipur, Kaziranga, BRT and Kanha, which reveals that BRT Wildlife Sanctuary also supports one of the highest biomass rich areas in the country.

Table 4.4 Biomass density of large herbivore (prey) species from different tropical regions in South Asia Location* Biomass density Forest type kg km -2 Nagarahole (Karanth & Sunquist, 1992) 7638.00 Tropical dry and moist deciduous Bandipur (Karanth & Nichols, 2000)* 5007.30 Tropical dry deciduous Bhadra (Jathanna et al., 2003)* 1277.25 Tropical dry and moist deciduous BRT (Present study) 4127.82 Tropical dry, moist deciduous and evergreen forest Pench (Biswas & Sankar, 2002) 6013.25 Tropical dry deciduous Kanha (Schaller, 1967) 3902.3-4805.70 Tropical moist deciduous

Gir (Khan et al., 1996) 3292.00 Tropical dry deciduous and thorn

Kaziranga (Karanth & Nichols, 2000)* 4252.00 Tropical moist with alluvial grasslands Ranthambore (Bagchi et al., 2003)* 6418.83 Tropical dry deciduous

*For Bhadra and Kaziranga, available density estimate was converted to biomass density by taking average weight of species from Eisenberg and Seidensticker (1976)

The overall herbivore density in BRT Wildlife Sanctuary was lesser than the many protected areas, however since the density of large bodied species like gaur and sambar is very high in BRT WLS has contributed to high biomass density. Since the density of biomass of large prey species is high, there is a possibility of high density of tigers in the sanctuary. As these forests are part of one of the largest forest complex in the Indian subcontinent holding largest population of highly threatened tiger, the population monitoring of large herbivores and large carnivores is highly essential. presently no study with regard to estimate of tiger and its ecology has been carried out in the sanctuary, hence further studies to comprehensively understand this aspect is suggested. Further management steps are required to enhance the density of prey species at marginal areas of the sanctuary to ensure long survival of viable population of large carnivores. 55 References

Bagchi, S., Goyal, S.P. and Sankar, K. (2003). Prey abundance and prey selection by tigers in a semiarid, dry deciduous forest in western India. Journal of Zoology, 260: 285-290. Biswas, S. and Sankar, K. (2002). Prey abundance and food habit of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Zoology, 256: 411-420. Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P. and Laake, J.L. (1993). Distance sampling. Chapman and Hall. London and New Yark. Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J.L., Borchers, D.L. and Thomas, L. (2001). Introduction to distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.J. and Laake, J.L. (1980). Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. In Wildlife Monographs 72. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society. Drummer, T.D. and McDonald, L.L. (1987). Size bias in line transect sampling. Biometrics, 43: 13-21. Eisenberg, J.F. (1980). The density and biomass of tropical mammals. Pp. 34-55, in Soule, M. E. and Wilcox, B.A. (eds), Conservation biology: an evolutionary- ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland. Eisenberg, J.F. and Seidensticker, J. (1976). Ungulates in Southern Asia: a consideration of biomass estimates for selected habitats. Biological Conservation, 10: 293-308. Jathanna, D., Karanth, K.U. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. (2003). Estimation of large herbivore densities in the tropical forests of southern India using distance sampling. Journal of Zoology, 261: 285-290. Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1983). Large mammalian prey-predators in Bandipur. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 80: 1-57. Karanth, K.U. and Nichols, J.D. (2000). Ecological status and conservation of tigers in India. Final technical report to the Division of International Conservation Society, New York. Bangalore, India: Centre for Wildlife Studies. Karanth, K.U. and Stith, B.M. (1999). Prey depletion as a critical determinant of tiger densities. In Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. and Jackson, P. (eds.), Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, M.E. (1992). Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 8: 21-35. Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, M.E. (1995). Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology, 64: 439-450. Karanth, K.U., Thomas, L. and Kumar, N.S. (2002). Field surveys: estimating absolute densities of prey species using line transect sampling. In Karanth, K.U. and Nichols, J.D. (eds.), Monitoring tigers and their prey. A manual for 56 wildlife researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Bangalore, India: Centre for Wildlife Studies. Khan, J.A., Chellam, R., Rodgers, W.A. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1996). Ungulate density and biomass in the tropical dry deciduous forests of Gir, Gujarat, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 12: 149-162. Laake, J.L., Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R. and Burnham, K.P. (1994). DISTANCE: user's guide, V 2.1. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Co-operative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State University. Murali, K.S. and Setty, R.S. (2001). Effects of weeds Lantana camera and Chromelina odorata growth on the species diversity, regeneration and stem density of tree and shrub layer in BRT sanctuary. Current Science, 80: 675-678. Prater, S.H. (1971). The book of Indian mammals. 3rd edn. Bombay: Bombay Natural History Society. Schaller, G.B. (1967). The deer and the tiger: a study of wildlife in India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Srikosamatara, S. (1993). Density and biomass of large herbivores and other mammals in a dry tropical forest, western Thailand. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 9: 33-43. Sunquist, M.E. (1981). The social organization of tigers (Panthera tigris) in Royal Chitwan National Park. Smithsonian Contribution to Zoology, 336: 1-98. Sunquist, M.E., Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, E. (1999). Ecology, behaviour and resilience of the tiger and its conservation needs. In Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. and Jackson, P. (eds.), Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Varman, K.S. and Sukumar, R. (1995). The line transects method for estimating densities of large mammals in a tropical deciduous forest: an evaluation of methods and field experiments. Journal of Bioscience , 20: 273-287. Venkataraman, A.B., Kumar, N.V., Varma, S. and Sukumar, R. (2002). Conservation of a flagship species prioritizing Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) conservation units in southern India. Current Science, 82: 1022-1033. Wikramanayake, E.D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J.G., Karanth, K.U., Rabinowitz, A.R., Olson, D., Mathews, T., Hedao, P., Conner, M., Hemley, G. and Bolze, D. (1998). An ecology based method for defining priorities for large mammal conservation: the tiger as a case study. Conservation biology, 12: 865-878. Wikramanayake, E.D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J.G., Karanth, K.U., Rabinowitz, A.R., Olson, D., Mathews, T., Hedao, P., Conner, M., Hemley, G and Bolze, D. (1999). People, tiger habitat availability, and linkages for the tigers future. In Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. and Jackson, P. (eds.), Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

57 Chapter V Distribution and status of Asian elephants Elephas maximus

Introduction

Population estimation is crucial especially in the case of large mammals such as Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) to derive appropriate management for conservation of species in the wild. A rough estimate of about 45,000 wild Asian elephants is believed to survive in 13 range countries in Asia which includes. India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Vietnam, and China. Of the total, 25,000 wild elephants are expected to be in India (Sukumar and Santiapillai; 1996, Sukumar, 2003). Due to fragmentation of elephant habitats, an optimistic population estimate shows that around 100 elephants in eight populations distributed in single contiguous forests (Kemf and Jackson, 2000) with highly skewed adult sex ratios due to various reasons.

In India, elephants are distributed in four regions including northern, north eastern, central and southern (Sukumar, 1986), with a rough estimate of about 9,500 to 16,500 elephants in southern India alone (Sukumar, 2003). In southern India, Nagarahole-Nilgiris-Eastern Ghats region contains 3600 to 4300 elephants were believed to survive in the wild. In addition to the earlier declaration of 10 elephant reserves by Project Elephant in India, recently many elephant ranges in each state are brought under elephant reserves status (Bist, 2002). Presently there are 25 elephant reserves in 12 states covering an area of about 58,000 km2.

Nagarahole-Nilgiris-Eastern Ghats elephant reserve in south India is one of the important conservation areas for elephants in India with a minimum population estimation of about 6300 elephants in an area of 12,000 km2. This reserve extends from the Brahmagiri hills in north, Nilgiris in south, and Eastern Ghats in the east in the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, including few elephant herds in Andhra Pradesh (Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, 1998). Within the Nagarahole-Nilgiris-Eastern Ghats elephant reserve

59 retains contiguous and intact forest in south Asia (Leimgruber et al., 2003) and the four important zones within this reserve contain large populations of elephants. These zones include Brahmagiri hills in Karnataka and Wynad north in Kerala with more wet forests, Nagarahole, Bandipur, Wynad and Mudumalai forests with moist and dry forests, Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife area in Karnataka and northern forests of Sathyamangala Division with diverse forest types, and Cauvery river belt and Kollegal forest division in Karnataka and Hosur and Dharmapuri forest division in Tamil Nadu with dry forests.

Though Asian Elephant is a flagship and charismatic species, estimates of the species is available from very few parks e.g. Nagarahole (3.3 elephants km-2, but authors consider 1.9 elephants km-2 as more reliable, which is lower confidence interval of the estimate, Karanth and Sunquist, 1992) and Mudumalai (4.41 elephants km-2, Varman and Sukumar, 1995). It has been assumed from the current estimates of elephant populations elsewhere, a range of 2 to 4 elephants km-2 with a total population estimation range between 691 -914 elephants was derived for the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary (Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, 1998).

Most of the elephant density estimates are available at landscape level. Very few studies addressed at elephant densities at park level (Karanth and Sunquist, 1992; Ramakrishnan et al., 1998; Goswami et al., 2007; Varma, 2008). Thus, we initiated a study to establish data on distribution and status of elephants for the sanctuary and provide them in the present chapter.

Methods To obtain a minimum detection to estimate the realistic density with minimum coefficient of variation the effort required usually is very high for elephants. Probably this has made researchers reluctant from attempt of estimating the density of elephants. And further elephant movement is seasonal and to overcome the bias in the estimation the effort may be required from all the seasons. Till date no such estimates from long period study in any part of the reserve is available. To provide a reliable estimate for the elephants, 795.5 km of transect walk was made in the period of seven months from October 2009 to April 2010. 60 The details on number of transect and data collections are provided in earlier chapters (Chapter III –IV). On each sighting, we have collected information on age- sex of individuals in a herd. For sightings which did not have age-sex of individuals, a total count of herd was considered for the analysis. The age of the individuals less than 15 years were considered as immature, and rest were treated as adults (Sukumar et al., 1988). Data on herd size and age-sex of elephants were pooled form the all the methods including incidental data for the analysis.

Results A total of 46 sightings of elephants were noticed on transects. Data did not show heaping in both truncated and un-truncated data (Fig. 5.1), The estimate with an un-truncated data was 1.78 elephants km-2, where the estimate was slightly less with the truncated data i.e. 1.70 elephants km-2 (Table 1). However the coefficient of variation was slightly higher in the truncated data than in un-truncated data. The confidence interval for the estimate has become slight narrower with truncated data.

61 a.

b.

Figure 5.1 Detection distance, a. un-truncated data b.. truncated data

Table 5.1 Density estimate for elephants in the Biligiri Rangaswamy

Temple Wildlife Sanctuary. n- number of detections; g -density of clusters; Y- mean cluster size; - density of individuals; CV( )- percent coefficient of variation; 95% CI - 95% confidence interval.

-2 -2 -2 Data type n g (km ) (km ) CV ( ) (%) 95% CI (km ) Un-truncated 46 0.68 2.60 1.78 16.93 1.27-2.48 Truncated 44 0.69 2.44 1.70 18.97 1.17-2.46

62 We calculated the relative encounter rate (mean sightings /km) of elephant sightings across forest ranges and forest types. No significant differences were found between forest ranges (F4, 68 = 1.978, p = 0.108) and forest types (F3, 69= 1.163, p = 0.330). However Punjur Range had highest sightings (0.21/km², ±0.21) than other forest ranges (Fig. 5.2). Similarly, evergreen forests (0.17/ km², ±0.25) and deciduous forests (0.13/ km², ±0.17) had high sightings of elephants than in other forest types (Fig. 5.3).

Figure 5.2 Mean sightings/ km in different forest ranges of BRT Wildlife Sanctuary

Figure 5.3 Mean sightings/ km in different forest types of BRT Wildlife Sanctuary

63 The herd size ranged between 1 and 6 elephants, and the mean herd size was 2.4±1.44 (SD). Number of sightings and proportion of herds in each size category are presented in Fig. 5.4. About 40% of the sightings were single individuals. Most of these individuals were males, and few solitary females were also sighted. Herd size ranged between two to four individuals. Among the adult males, 70% of them were below 30years. The proportion of adult male was 15.2%, where adult female was 62.9% and immature was 22.0% in the sanctuary. A ratio of 1:4.1 one adult male to 4.1 females was noticed during the study. However, adult female to immature ratio was 1:0.35 only.

Figure 5.4 Number of sightings of elephant herds in each size catagory.

64 Discussion

The population of wild Asian elephants in range countries has been matter of debate. The recent estimate for elephants in India ranges between 27,669 – 27,719 (Project Elephant, Government of India, 2010). This project has declared 26 elephant reserves with an area of 60,000 km2 to protect elephants, their habitats and corridors. Estimation of elephant densities has been crucial for designing appropriate management options for conservation of Asian elephants in protected areas. The current estimate for the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary is comparable to earlier studies (Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, 1998). Our results indicate the estimates of 917 elephants for the sanctuary. Our efforts to estimate elephant densities is very reliable and accurate, since the effort involved detections attains minimum requirement for a reliable estimate. Varman et al. (1995) compared elephant densities from direct count method and dropping

count method and found that direct count method estimates was much higher than the estimates from dropping count method. The differences in elephant densities from above two methods necessitate comparisons with the absolute densities from the known populations. However, the coefficient of variation in direct count method was much higher than the dropping count method, hence to bring down the variation to minimum (< 20%) as suggested (Burnham et al., 1980), as the

65 minimum two years data required for good estimate on populations. This indicates that intensive effort decreases the variation and increases the precision of the estimate. The data from our line transect data indicated a coefficient of variation of 18. 97% during seven months of study.

Elephants are generalist feeders and known to survive in wide variety of habitat from dry scrub forests to high altitude shola forests (Sukumar and Ramesh, 1995). Elephants were found in all forest types and observed that every corner of the park was visited at one or other season in the year which can be attributed to their capability to survive in all the forest types and also their adaptability to browse and graze. Most of the sightings of elephant herds were small ranged between 2–4 with substantial proportion of solitary individuals in the sanctuary.

The present study highlights biased age-sex ratios in the region and small herd size. We do not have clear answers as to why the proportion of immature are very less in the population and the proportion of young males are more than the old adult males (age > 30 y). The reasons for such skewed sex-ratios due to lack of systematic surveys carried out in the last two decades in the sanctuary. Poaching of older males could be one of the main reasons that could attribute for biased sex ratios in Asian elephants. Studies have indicated that skewed sex ratios of 1 adult male: 101 adult females in the Periyar Tiger Reserve hampered demographic structures of elephants and this was attributed to poaching pressures and poor birth rates in elephants (Ramakrishnan et al., 1998). The present study warrants further research and active management strategies in terms of genetic aspects, regular monitoring of human-elephant conflicts which may result retaliatory killing of elephants, especially males, by people, impact of spatial correlates on the demography of elephants, and parasitic loads in elephants.

References

Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre. (1998). The Asian Elephants in southern India: A GIS database for conservation of Project Elephant Reserves. Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, Bangalore. Bist, S.S. (2002). An overview of elephant conservation in India. The Indian Forester, 128: 121-136.

66 Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.J. and Laake, J.L. (1980). Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. In Wildlife Monographs 72. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society. Goswami, V.R., Madhusudan, M.D. and Karanth, K.U. (2007). Application of photographic capture–recapture modeling to estimate demographic parameters for male Asian elephants. Animal Conservation, 10: 391 – 399. Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, M.E. (1992). Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 8: 21-35. Kemf, E. and Santiapillai, C. (2000). Wanted Alive! Asian Elephants in the Wild. 2000 WWF Species Report. WWF-International, Gland, Switzerland. Leimgruber, P., Gagnon, J.B., Wemmer, C., Kelly, D.S., Songer, M.A. and Selig, E.R. (2003). Fragmentation of Asia's remaining wild lands: implications for Asian elephant conservation. Animal Conservation, 6:347–359. Project elephant 2010: Estimated population of wild elephants for the year 2007 – 08. http://envfor.nic.in/pe/elephant2007.pdf. Accessed on 21 June 2010. Santosh, J.A., Uma Ramakrishnan, U. and Sukumar, R. (1998). The population and conservation status of Asian elephants in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Southern India. Current Science, 74: 110 – 113. Sukumar, R. (1986). The elephant populations of India-strategies for conservation. Proceedings of Indian Academy of Science (Suppl.,), 59-71. Sukumar, R., Joshi, N.V. and Krishnamurthy, V. (1988). Growthin the Asian elephant. In: Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science (Animal Sciences), 97: 561-571. Sukumar, R. and Ramesh, R. (1995). Elephant foraging: is browse or grass more important. Pp. 368-374, in Daniel, J.C. and Datye, H. (eds.), A week with elephants. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay and Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Sukumar, R. and Santiapillai, C. (1996). Elephas maximus: stauts and distribution. Pp. 327-331, In Shoshani, J. and Tassy, P. (eds.), The Proboscidea, evolutionary and palaecology of elephants and their relatives. Oxford University Press. Varma, S. (2008). Spatial distribution of Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) and its habitat usage pattern in Kalakad–Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Western Ghats, southern India. Current Science, 94: 501 – 506. Varman, K.S. and Sukumar, R. (1995). The line transects method for estimating densities of large mammals in a tropical deciduous forest: an evaluation of methods and field experiments. Journal of Bioscience, 20: 273-287. Varman, K.S., Ramakrishnan, U. and Sukumar, R. (1995). Direct and indirect methods of counting elephants: a comparison of results from Mudumalai Sanctuary. Pp. 331-339, in Daniel, J.C. and Datye, H. (eds.), A week with elephants. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay and Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

67