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

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

Diet ecology of tigers and leopards in Chhattisgarh, central

Krishnendu Basak, Moiz Ahmed, M. Suraj, B.V. Reddy, O.P. Yadav & Krishnendu Mondal

26 February 2020 | Vol. 12 | No. 3 | Pages: 15289–15300 DOI: 10.11609/jot.5526.12.3.15289-15300

For Focus, Scope, Aims, Policies, and Guidelines visit htps://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/about/editorialPolicies#custom-0 For Artcle Submission Guidelines, visit htps://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions For Policies against Scientfc Misconduct, visit htps://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/about/editorialPolicies#custom-2 For reprints, contact

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

Member

Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) PLATINUM OPEN ACCESS DOI: htps://doi.org/10.11609/jot.5526.12.3.15289-15300

#5526 | Received 05 November 2019 | Final received 10 January 2020 | Finally accepted 02 February 2020

C o m Diet ecology of tgers and leopards in Chhatsgarh, central India m u n Krishnendu Basak 1 , Moiz Ahmed 2 , M. Suraj 3 , B.V. Reddy 4, O.P. Yadav 5 & Krishnendu Mondal 6 i c a 1,2,3 Nova Nature Welfare Society, H. No. 36/337, Chot Masjid, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Chhatsgarh 492001, India. t 4 Vivekananda Reddy, Ofce of the Deputy Director Udant Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Gariyaband, Chhatsgarh, India. i 5 Ofce of Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) & Field Director, Udant Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Raipur Gaurav Path, Raja Taalab, Raipur, o Chhatsgarh, India. n 6 Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India, Regional Ofce (North-Central Zone), 25, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Utarakhand 248001, India. 1 [email protected] (corresponding author), 2 [email protected], 3 [email protected], 4 [email protected], 5 [email protected], 6 [email protected]

Abstract: Wild prey base is a potental regulatory parameter that supports successful propagaton and secured long term survival of large predators in their natural habitats. Therefore, low wild prey availability with higher available livestock in or around forest areas ofen catalyzes livestock depredaton by predators that eventually leads to adverse situatons to conservaton initatves. Thus understanding the diet ecology of large predators is signifcant for their conservaton in the areas with low prey base. The present study reports the diet ecology of tger and leopard in Udant Sitanadi Tiger Reserve and Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary, in central India to know the efect of wild prey availability on prey predator relatonship. We walked line transects to estmate prey abundance in the study areas where we found langur and rhesus macaque to be the most abundant . Scat analysis showed that despite the scarcity of large and medium ungulates, tger used wild ungulates including and wild along with high livestock utlizaton (39%). Leopards highly used langur (43–50 %) as a prime prey species but were observed to exploit livestock as prey (7–9 %) in both the study areas. Scarcity of wild ungulates and contnuous livestock predaton by tger and leopard eventually indicated that the study areas were unable to sustain healthy large predator populatons. Developing some strong protecton framework and careful implementaton of the ungulate augmentaton can bring a fruitul result to hold viable populatons of tger and leopard and secure their long term survival in the present study areas in central India, Chhatsgarh.

Keywords: Food habit, large predators, livestock depredaton, wildlife conservaton.

Editor: Mewa Singh, University of Mysore, Mysuru, India. Date of publicaton: 26 February 2020 (online & print)

Citaton: Basak, K., M. Ahmed, M. Suraj, B.V. Readdy, O.P. Yadav & K. Mondal (2020). Diet ecology of tgers and leopards in Chhatsgarh, central India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(3): 15289–15300. htps://doi.org/10.11609/jot.5526.12.3.15289-15300

Copyright: © Basak et al 2020. Creatve Commons Atributon 4.0 Internatonal License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproducton, and distributon of this artcle in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publicaton.

Funding: Forest Department of Chhatsgarh.

Competng interests: The authors declare no competng interests.

Author details: Krishnendu Basak’s responsibilites at Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) include mitgatng man- confict mostly with tger and study confict dynamics in the Sundarban landscape. Moiz Ahmed is actvely involved with the state forest department in Wild Bufalo conservaton program, snake rescue, and release project in state capital Raipur and also conducted tger monitoring and populaton estmaton exercises in Chhatsgarh. M. Suraj actvely partcipated as a researcher during Phase IV tger monitoring and All India Tiger Estmaton, 2018 across various protected areas of Chhatsgarh, trained forest staf on snake rescue and AITM data collecton procedure, and assisted in data collecton and management for the same. B.V. Reddy (IFS) was the deputy director of Udant Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Gariyaband during the study period. O.P. Yadav (IFS) was the feld director of Udant Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Chhatsgarh during the study period. Dr. Krishnendu Mondol is presently associated with Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

Author contributon: KB provided technical inputs for the study, guidance for data collecton and technical writng. MA conducted feld work, data collecton, and management. MS managed feld work, data collecton, training, and capacity building. BVR and OPY provided permissions for the study and logistcal & fnancial support. KM provided technical inputs for the study, guidance for data collecton, and technical writng.

For Acknowledgements and Hindi abstract see end of this artcle.

15289 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

INTRODUCTION scarcity of wild prey. Huntng and habitat destructon are the major reasons behind the decline of wild Investgatng diet compositon of a predator is vital prey availability. The distributon ranges of tgers and to indicate the adequacy of prey base and understand leopards are mostly interspersed and overlapped prey requirements. Fluctuatons in prey abundance with human habitatons. In such situatons, there are may induce changes in dietary selecton and the rate of abundant records of carnivores huntng livestock which prey consumpton by predators (Korpimäki 1992; Dale in turn frequently leads to retaliatory killing of the et al. 1994). Prey selecton by large carnivores is a vital predators or escalates human tger or leopard confict. strategy to maintain their populaton growth and their It has become a serious issue and can be considered as distributon in space and hence, it becomes essental to one of the toughest hurdles to resolve in large carnivore understand the life history strategies of carnivores for conservaton and management. In India these large beter management practces (Miquelle et al. 1996). carnivores are gradually confned within the fragmented Generally, the tger Panthera tgris as a large solitary forest habitats that share sharp boundaries that home predator requires >8 kg of meat daily to maintain its dense human populatons. Areas like these experience body conditon (Schaller 1967; Sunquist 1981). It hunts intensive grazing by domestc and feral catle, and a varied range of prey species based on their availability simultaneous forest resource utlizaton by local in a partcular landscape; this may include large bovids people have been degrading tger habitats in terms of such as Indian (Karanth & Sunquist 1995) to small retarded growth of vegetaton, increase in abundance like hares, fsh, and crabs (Johnsingh 1983; of weeds and ultmately depleton of natural prey base Mukherjee & Sarkar 2013). Tigers, however, prefer prey (Madhusudan 2000). As a consequence of increase in species that weigh 60–250 kg and this indicates the livestock and depleton of natural prey base, carnivores conservaton signifcance of large-sized prey species in are compelled to prey on the domestc livestock the maintenance of viable tger populatons (Hayward (Kolipaka et al. 2017). et al. 2012). Whereas, plastcity in leopard Panthera Studies have already been conducted to understand pardus behavior (Daniel 1996) enables them to exploit a the feeding ecology of tger and leopard in many parts broad spectrum of prey species which makes them more of the Indian sub-contnent but, there are only few adaptable to varied range of habitats. Large carnivores studies available where diets of both the top predators show high morphological variatons (Mills & Harvey 2001) have been studied together (Sankar & Johnsingh 2002; across their distributon ranges which in turn regulate Ramesh et al. 2009; Majumder et al. 2013; Mondal et al. their dietary requirements. The number of prey items in 2013). To gather knowledge on the complex diet ecology a leopard’s diet can go up to 30 (Le Roux & Skinner 1989) and prey-predator relatonship of tger and leopard, the or even 40 species (Schaller 1972). Leopards consume present study was conducted in two diferent protected prey items ranging from small birds, rodents to medium areas in Chhatsgarh, central India with the objectves and large-sized prey such as Chital Axis axis, , to understand the food habits of leopard in absence of and Sambar to domestc prey like young bufalo, tger (in Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary) and in presence and domestc dogs in the Indian subcontnent (Eisenberg of tgers but with low prey abundance (Udant Sitanadi & Lockhart 1972; Santapillai et al. 1982; Johnsingh Tiger Reserve). The present study was conducted in 1983; Rabinowitz 1989; Seidenstcker et al. 1990; Bailey Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary (BWS) from March 1993; Karanth & Sunquist 1995; Daniel 1996; Edgaonkar 2016 to June 2016 and in Udant Sitanadi Tiger Reserve & Chellam 1998; Sankar & Johnsingh 2002; Qureshi & (USTR) from December 2016 to June 2017. Studying Edgaonkar 2006; Edgaonkar 2008; Mondal et al. 2011; large predator diet is always useful for park managers Sidhu et al. 2017). Hayward et al. (2012) categorized because it provides very relevant informaton on prey Leopard as a predator that exploits over one hundred species utlizaton by large carnivores. The present study prey species but prefers to kill prey items within 10–50 will eventually atribute to such important aspects of kg body weight which may deviate to 15–80 kg (Stander resource management of the large carnivore populatons et al. 1997), depending on their hunger level, huntng in both the study areas. eforts and sex (Bothma & Le Riche 1990; Mondal et al. 2011). Apart from the natural prey-predator relatonship, tgers and leopards are reported to consume domestc ungulates as a large proporton of their diet during

15290 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Prey abundance estmaton Line transect method under distance sampling Study areas technique was followed to estmate the prey abundance BWS is spread over 351.25km2 and situated in the in both the study areas (Anderson et al. 1979; Burnham Maikal Range of central India (Figure 1). It provides an et al. 1980; Buckland et al. 1993, 2001). In total, 29 extension to the Kanha Tiger Reserve as well as serves transects in BWS and 108 transects in USTR were laid as a corridor for dispersing wildlife between the Kanha according to their areas and surveyed during the study and Achanakmar Tiger Reserves (Qureshi et al. 2014). period (Figure 1). Each transect was 2km in length Bhoramdeo is mostly dominated by Shorea robusta. and walked three tmes in BWS and 5–6 tmes in USTR A mixture of tropical dry and mixed deciduous forest between 06.30 and 08.30 h on diferent days. The total types with bamboo brakes formed the vegetaton of efort of the transect samplings was 174km and 974km the sanctuary (Champion & Seth 1968). Tiger, leopard, for BWS and USTR, respectvely. The data were recorded Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus, and Dhole Cuon alpinus are for six ungulate species, viz., Chital, Sambar, Gaur, Wild reported as large carnivores in the area. Major ungulates Boar, Barking , and Nilgai in both the study areas. are Chital Axis axis, Barking Deer Muntacus vaginalis, The other species recorded during the transect walk were Sambar unicolor, Four-horned Antelope Tetraceros Northern Plains Gray Langur and Rhesus Macaque. On quadricornis, Indian Gaur gaurus, Nilgai Boselaphus each sightng of these species the following parameters tragocamelus, and Wild Boar Sus scrofa. Two commonly were recorded, a) group size, b) animal bearing, and found primates in BWS are Northern Plains Gray Langur c) radial distance (Mondal et al. 2011). Radial distance Semnopithecus entellus and Rhesus Macaque Macaca and animal bearing were measured using range fnder mulata. Smaller carnivores include the Jungle Cat Felis (HAWKE LRF 400 Professional) and compass (Suunto KB chaus, Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis, and Golden Jackal 20/360), respectvely. Canis aureus. The key to distance sampling analyses is to ft a USTR is spread over 1842.54km2 of Gariyaband and detecton functon, g(x), to the perpendicular distances Dhamtari districts of Chhatsgarh, central India (Figure from the transect line and use it to estmate the 1). It is consttuted with Udant and Sitanadi Wildlife proporton of animals missed by the survey (Buckland et Sanctuaries as cores and Taurenga, Indagaon and al. 2001), assuming that all animals on the line transect Kulhadighat Ranges as bufer. The topography of the area are detected (i.e., g(0) = 1). The assumptons of distance includes hill ranges with the intercepted strips of plains. sampling have been discussed by Buckland et al. (2001). The forest types are chiefy dry tropical peninsular sal Program DISTANCE ver. 6 was used to estmate prey forest and southern tropical dry deciduous mixed forest density. The best model selecton was carried out by (Champion & Seth 1968). Sal is dominant, mixed with the generated values of Akaike informaton criterion Terminalia sp., Anogeissus sp., Pterocarpus sp., and (AIC; Akaike 2011). Populaton density (D), cluster size, bamboo species. The Tiger is the apex predator in the group encounter rate and biomass (body weight of prey area and other co-predators are Leopard, Dhole, Indian species x density) for each species was calculated in the Grey Wolf Canis lupus, Striped Hyena Hyeana hyena and present study. Sloth Bear. Chital, Sambar, Nilgai, Four-horned Antelope, Barking Deer, Wild Boar, Gaur, and Indian Mouse Deer Food habits estmaton Moschiola indica represent the ungulate prey base in The food habits of leopards and tgers were estmated USTR. Smaller carnivores include the Jungle Cat Felis following scat analysis methods (Sankar & Johnsingh chaus, Rusty-spoted Cat, Prionailusrus rubiginosus, and 2002; Link & Karanth 1994; Mondal et al 2011; Basak et Golden Jackal Canis aureus. al. 2018). Tiger and leopard scat samples were collected USTR is contguous with Sonabeda Wildlife Sanctuary during the sign survey along the trails in the study (proposed tger reserve) in Odisha on the eastern side areas. Scats were collected opportunistcally whenever and forms Udant-Sitanadi-Sonabeda Landscape. This encountered, irrespectve of fresh or old conditon to connectvity has a good future if the entre tger landscape increase sample size. Scat samples were collected from complex (Chhatsgarh-Odisha Tiger Conservaton Unit) entre BWS and North Udant, South Udant, Taurenga, can be taken under signifcant wildlife conservaton and Kulhadighat ranges of USTR. In total 100 leopard eforts. scats were collected from BWS, 30 tger scats and 121 leopard scats were collected from USTR for diet analysis. Tiger and leopard scats were diferentated on the basis

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 15291 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

Figure 1. The locatons of Udant-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve and Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Chhatsgarh, central India.

Figure 1a. Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary on lef side and Udant Sitanadi Tiger Reserve on right side.

of degree of lesser coiling and larger gap between two and leopard (Schaller 1967; Sunquist 1981; Johnsingh constrictons in a piece of tger scat (Biswas & Sankar 1983; Karanth & Sunquist 1995; Biswas & Sankar 2002). 2002). Scat analysis was performed to derive frequency Scats were frst sun-dried then washed using sieves of occurrence of consumed prey items in the scats of tger and collectble hairs, bones, feathers were fltered out.

15292 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

The hair samples were dried and collected in zip-lock RESULTS polythene bags for further lab analysis. In laboratory, hairs were washed in Xylene and later mounted in Prey abundance Xylene (Bahuguna et al. 2010) and slides were studied In BWS, Rhesus Macaque was found to be the most under 10–40 X using a compound light microscope. abundant species and its estmated density was 24.03 For each sample at least twenty hairs (n=20 hairs/ animals ± 7.34 (SE)/km2 followed by langur 21.82 animals sample) were selected randomly for diet identfcaton ± 2.45 (SE)/km2. Among ungulates, Chital density was 2 and species level identfcaton has been done based found to be the highest (12.86 ± 5.85 (SE)/km ) followed on species-specifc hair medulla patern of prey items by Wild Boar (7.1 ± 2.9 SE/km2), Nilgai (5.82 ± 2.53 SE/ as described by Bahuguna et al. (2010). To evaluate km2), Barking Deer (5.74 ± 1.3 SE/km2), and Sambar the efect of sample size on results of scat analysis (0.95 ± 0.48 SE/km2) (Table 1). The density of hare was (Mukherjee et al. 1994a,b), fve scats were chosen at found to be 1.04 ± 0.48 SE/km2 and for Indian Peafowl it random and their contents analyzed. This was contnued was 6.55 ± 2.65 SE/km2 (Table 1). tll n=100, n= 30 and n=121 scat samples were analyzed In USTR, Northern Plains Common Langur was found and cumulatve frequency of occurrence for each prey to be the most abundant species (35.06 ± 7.01 (SE)/km2), species was calculated to infer the efect of sample size followed by Rhesus Macaque 22.94 ± 9.45 (SE)/km2. on the fnal result (Mondal et al. 2011). Quantfcaton Chital density was found to be the highest (3.77 ± 0.96 2 of prey biomass consumed from scat was computed by (SE)/km ) among the ungulates and it was followed by using the asymptotc, allometric relatonship equaton; Wild Boar (2.30.1 ± 0.46 SE/km2), Barking Deer (1.86 ± biomass consumed per collectable scat/predator weight 0.33 SE/ km2), and Nilgai (0.53 ± 0.18 SE/ km2) (Table 2). = 0.033–0.025exp-4.284(prey weight/predator weight) (Chakrabart et al. 2016). Prey selecton of tgers and leopards was Food habits estmated for each species by comparing the proporton In BWS, nine diferent prey items were identfed of the prey species utlized from scats with the expected from the collected leopard scats (n=100). No new prey number of scats available in the environment for each species were found afer analyzing 50–60 scats, as shown of prey species consumed (Karanth & Sunquist 1995) by diet stabilizaton curve (Figure 2A). The relatonship in SCATMAN (Link & Karanth 1994). Prey selecton was between contributons of all nine prey species in the diet also determined by using Ivlev’s index (Ivlev 1961), of leopards showed that minimum of 50–60 scats should where E= (U-A)/ (U+A), U=relatve frequency occurrence be analyzed annually to understand the food habits of of prey species in predators’ scat and A=Expected scat leopard, and the sample size (n=100) in the present proporton in the environment. study was adequate (Figure 3A). Among all the prey species, langur contributed the most (43.65%) to the diet of leopard whereas wild ungulates contributed only 29.35% and separately livestock contributed 6.34% of the total consumpton. In BWS, presence of Sambar and

Table 1. Density, cluster size and group encounter rate of diferent prey species in Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary, Chhatsgarh (2016–2017).

Cluster size Density (per km2) Biomass (kg/ Number of Species per km2) sightngs Mean SE Density SE

Chital 25 10.84 2.08 12.86 5.85 578.70

Sambar 8 2.13 0.30 0.95 0.48 123.5

Nilgai 17 3.29 0.50 5.82 2.53 855.54

Wild Boar 17 5.71 1.20 7.10 2.90 319.5

Barking Deer 41 1.70 0.15 5.74 1.30 143.5

Common Langur 25 12.52 1.23 21.82 5.34 218.2

Rhesus Macaque 17 13.588 2.02 24.03 7.34 185.03

Hare 9 1.11 0.11 1.04 0.48 2.80

Peafowl 20 3.15 0.34 6.55 2.65 22.27

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 15293 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

A

B

Figure 2. Diet stabilizaton curve of A—Leopard in Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary | B—Leopard in Udant- Sitanadi Tiger Reserve | C—Tiger in C Udant-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve.

Four-horned Antelope were recorded but were never Table 2. Density, cluster size and group encounter rate of diferent prey species in Udant-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Chhatsgarh (2016– represented in leopard scats. Hare and other rodents 2017). were found to contribute frequently (11.9%, 7.14%) Number Density (per Biomass to the leopard diet (Table 3) but porcupine was found 2 of Cluster size km ) (kg/per negligible, found only in the 1.58% of all leopard scat. All Species sightngs Mean SE Density SE km2) the wild ungulates together represented 42.89% of total Chital 41 3.13 0.30 3.77 0.96 169.65 biomass consumpton by leopard whereas langur alone Sambar 10 - - - - -

contributed the highest at 43%. Livestock represented Nilgai 21 2.22 0.37 0.53 0.18 77.91

9.93% of the consumed biomass by leopard which was Wild Boar 36 3.23 0.33 2.30 0.46 103.5 higher than the contributons made by any other wild Barking Deer 67 1.16 0.44 1.86 0.33 46.5 ungulates in BWS (Table 3). Ivlev’s index of prey selecton Common 88 18.45 1.92 35.06 7.51 350.6 criterion indicated Chital, Wild Boar and Nilgai were not Langur Rhesus signifcantly utlized as per their availability. Whereas 43 18.15 2.92 22.94 9.45 121.582 Macaque Barking Deer, Indian Hare and Common Langur were the selected prey species by leopard (Figure 4) in the area. Similarly, in the diet of leopard in USTR, nine prey

15294 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

A

) B

Figure 3. Relatonship between contributons of prey species in the diet of A—Leopard in Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary | B—Leopard in Udant- Sitanadi Tiger Reserve | C—Tiger in C Udant-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve.

items were identfed from the scats (n=121). It was also indicated only Common Langur as a selected species found that afer analyzing 40–50 scats, no new species by leopard in USTR and all other species were utlized were identfed (Figure 2B) and from the relatonship less than their availability in the sampling area of USTR between contributons of nine prey species in the diet (Figure 5). of leopard in Udant Sitanadi Wildlife Sanctuary, it was Five diferent prey items were identfed in the diet understood that analysis of more than 50 scats is enough of tger as analyzed through scats (n=30) in USTR. Afer to understand the food habits of leopards (Figure 3B). analyzing 20 scats, no new prey species was found in Among all the prey species, Common Langur contributed tger’s diet (fgure 2C and 3C), that signifes our sample maximum (50.92%) to the diet of leopard followed by size was adequate to understand tger’s diet. It was rodents, livestock, Chital, Wild Boar, Barking Deer, Four- found that 47.37% of tger’s diet was contributed by wild horned Antelope, sambar and birds (Table 4). Common ungulates, 39.47% by livestock and 13.16% by common Langur was found to be contributng maximum (57.79%) langur in terms of percentage frequency of occurrence in leopard’s diet in terms of biomass consumpton. All (table 5). Livestock, however, contributed 47.33 % of the wild ungulates together contributed 26.71% of total the total biomass consumed by tger in USTR (table 5). biomass consumed by leopards, whereas livestock alone Ivlev’s selecton index expectedly indicated that tger contributed 15.50% (Table 4). Ivlev’s selecton index selected Chital and Wild Boar signifcantly (p > 0.05)

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 15295 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

DISCUSSION

Populaton density of prey species, specifcally ungulates were found signifcantly low in both the study areas BWS and USTR. Primates including Rhesus Macaque (24.03/km2 and 22.94/km2 in BWS and USTR, respectvely) and Common Langur (21.82/km2 and 35.06/km2 in BWS and USTR, respectvely) were found to be the most abundant prey speicies which evidently supported leopard populaton in the areas but were not Figure 4. Prey selecton of leopard as evidenced from Ivlev’s Index in prefered by tger. Various studies on diet ecology of tger Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary, Chhatsgarh (2016–2017). indicated that they mostly prefer large to medium size prey species like Sambar, Chital and Wild Boar, whereas in Chhatsgarh large to medium size prey species have been found to be less as compared to other protected areas in central India (Table 6). Despite low abundance, however, tger was found to prey mostly upon wild prey species including Chital and Wild Boar in USTR. Leopard was found to prefer mostly small to medium sized prey species including Barking Deer and Common Langur in both the study areas. It can be assumed that low abundances of small to large sized wild ungulates in both the study areas have triggered livestock utlizaton by the large cats (Table Figure 5. Prey selecton of leopard as evidenced from Ivlev’s Index in 3-5). In USTR, livestock contributed 50% of overall Udant-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Chhatsgarh (2016–2017). biomass consumed by tger and 15% in case of leopard. Similarly, in BWS livestock contributed more than 9% of overall biomass consumed by leopard. Less abundance of wild ungulates and higher utlizaton of livestock by tger and leopard eventually have indicated that both the protected areas were not in a conditon to sustain healthy large predator populatons and the conditons appeared to be challenging for future large carnivore conservaton eforts. The study areas have resident populatons of huntng human communites like Baiga, Kamar and Bhunjiya who stll practce traditonal huntng in these areas of Chhatsgarh. USTR even has pressures from external Figure 6. Prey selecton of tger as evidenced from Ivlev’s Index in hunters who illegaly exploit the region as their huntng Udant-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Chhatsgarh (2016–2017). ground. These uncontrolled practces are serious threats to the wild ungulate populatons and consequently afectng the food resources of carnivore populatons whereas langur was highly avoided by tger during the in the study areas. Therefore, prey depleton by these study period (Figure 6). Sambar was found only two illegal huntng practces compels large mammalian tmes in scat despite their low availability in the study predators to prey upon livestock, which brings forward area. even bigger conservaton threat, i.e., negatve human- wildlife (tger/leopard) interacton. Athreya et al. (2016) also supported the fact that in the situatons where large prey availibility is less, chances of livestock predaton is automatcally elevated. Both the study areas have villages inside the core

15296 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

Table 3. Percentage frequency of occurrence, percentage biomass consumpton of diferent prey species by leopard as shown by scat analysis in Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary, Chhatsgarh (2016–2017).

Presence in number % Frequency of Prey consumed per feld % Biomass (kg/per Prey Species Average body weight of scats occurrence collectble scat (kg) km2) consumed 1.92 Chital 11 8.73 45 13.26

1.98 3.73 Nilgai 3 2.38 147

1.92 9.63 Wild Boar 8 6.34 45

1.73 16.27 Barking Deer 15 11.9 25

1.25 43.00 Common Langur 55 43.65 10

0.74 4.20 Hare 9 7.14 2.7

Porcupine 2 1.58 - - - 1.98 9.93 Livestock 8 6.34 130

Rodents 15 11.9 - - -

Table 4. Percentage frequency of occurrence, percentage biomass consumpton of diferent prey species by leopard as shown by scat analysis in Udant-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Chhatsgarh (2016–2017).

Prey consumed Presence in % Frequency of Average body % Biomass (kg/per Prey Species per feld collectble number of scats occurrence weight km2) consumed scat (kg) 1.92 Chital 9 5.52 45 10.60

1.98 Sambar 2 1.23 130 2.44

1.92 Wild Boar 6 3.68 38 7.06

1.72 Barking Deer 5 3.07 24 5.31

Four-horned 1.59 4 2.45 19 3.90 Antelope 1.25 Common Langur 83 50.92 14 63.42

1.98 Livestock 14 8.59 130 17.01

Rodents 36 22.09 - - -

Birds 4 2.45 - - -

Table 5. Percentage frequency of occurrence, percentage biomass consumpton of diferent prey species by tger as shown by scat analysis in Udant-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Chhatsgarh (2016–2017).

Prey consumed per % Biomass Presence in % Frequency of Average body Prey species feld collectble scat (kg/per km2) number of scats occurrence weight (kg) consumed Chital 6 15.79 45 4.32 14.63

Sambar 3 7.9 125 5.72 9.47

Wild Boar 9 23.68 45 4.05 21.94

Common Langur 5 13.16 10 2.43 6.63

Livestock 15 39.47 130 5.72 47.33

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 15297 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

Table 6. Comparatve account of prey densites from diferent protected areas of central India.

Area Spoted deer Sambar Wild Boar Barking Deer Nilgai Gaur Chousingha

D SE D SE D SE D SE D SE D SE D SE

Melghata NA NA 10.5 3.5 NA NA 2.7 0.3 NA NA 5.8 1.7 NA NA

Pannab 5 1.8 8.7 2.2 7.5 4 0 0 9.5 1.9 0 0 4.2 1.2

Phenc 0.96 0.53 6.09 2.08 20.05 5.88 2.97 0.6 0 0 2.49 1.33 0.59 0.59

Kanhad 26.3 3.3 8.2 0.9 4.9 0.4 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 4.5 1.1 NA NA

Achanakmare 10.33 2.68 NA NA 12.72 4.31 0.97 0.35 NA NA 8.59 3.38 NA NA

Udant-Sitanadi* 3.77 0.96 NA NA 2.3 0.46 1.86 0.33 0.53 0.18 NA NA NA NA

Bhoramdeo* 12.86 5.85 0.95 0.48 7.1 2.9 5.74 1.3 5.82 2.83 NA NA NA NA

D—Density | SE—Standard Error | *—Study areas where the recent researches were conducted | (a Narasimmarajan et al. 2014, b Ramesh et al. 2013, c Jena et al. 2014, d Krishnamurthy et al. 2016, e Mandal et al. 2017).

areas and eventually have thousands of livestock which Careful efort and strong scientfc background behind roam mostly unguarded within the protected areas and the implementaton of the ungulate augmentaton become easy prey to large predators. BWS has 29 villages plan can bring a fruitul result and can secure long term inside the protected area boundary with approximately survival of large cats and other layer of carnivores in 4,000 domestc and feral catle populaton, whereas, Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary and Udant-Sitanadi Tiger USTR has setlements of 99 villages with 26,689 livestock Reserve in central India, Chhatsgarh. populaton. In the eight ranges of USTR, livestock density varied from 4.776–33.581/km2 even overall density of livestock was 14.489/km2 for the entre USTR which was REFERENCES found higher than the any wild ungulate populaton in this area. Consequently, catle killing by both tger and Akaike, H. (1973). Informaton theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov, B.N. & F. Csáki (eds.). leopard has become common in these areas and may 2nd Internatonal Symposium on Informaton Theory, Tsahkadsor, provoke severe negatve human-carnivore interactons Armenia, USSR, September 2-8, 1971, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 267–281pp. situatons in both the protected areas in the near future. Anderson, D.R., J.L. Laake, Β.R. Crain & Κ.V. Burnham (1979). The present study indicates the urgency of wild Guidelines for line transect sampling of biological populatons. ungulate populaton recovery programs in both BWS Journal of Wildlife Management 43: 70–78. Athreya, V., M. Odden, J.D.C. Linnell, J. Krisnaswamy & U. Karanth and USTR and also supports to initate the framework (2016). A cat among the dogs: leopard Panthera pardus diet in a of the recovery plan by fnding evident facts of low wild human-dominated landscape in western Maharashtra, India. ungulate abundances and higher livestock utlizaton 50(1): 156–162. htps://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000106 Bailey, T.N. (1993). The African Leopard: Ecology and Behaviour of a by large predators in these areas. Earlier studies Solitary Felid. Columbia University Press, New York, 429pp. showed that increasing availability of wider variety of Basak, K., D. Mandal, S. Babu, R. Kaul, N.V.K. Ashraf, A. Singh & K. ungulate prey species and checking grazing actvites in Mondal (2018). Prey animals of tger (Panthera tgris tgris) in Dudhwa Landscape, Terai Region, north India. Proceedings of the a protected forest system may decrease the livestock Zoological Society 71(1): 92–98. predaton by large predators in those areas and Bahuguna, A., V. Sahajpal, S.P. Goyal, S.K. Mukherjee & V. Thakur eventually decrease chances of negatve human-large (2010). Species identfcaton from guard hair of selected Indian : A reference Guide. Dehradun, India: Wildlife Insttute of predator interactons (Basak et al. 2018; Sankar et al. India. 2009). Feasibility framework for recovery, however, is Biswas, S. & K. Sankar (2002). Prey abundance and food habit of tgers required by involving mult-step conservaton friendly (Panthera tgris tgris) in Pench Natonal Park, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Zoology 256(3): 411–420. control measures. Village level mass sensitzaton to Bothma, J.du.P. & E.A.N. Le Riche (1990). The infuence of change their percepton is vital to build up support increasing hunger on the huntng behaviour of southern Kalahari leopards. Journal of Arid Environments 18: 79–84. for the ungulate recovery program and to maintain Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham & J.L. Laake (1993). viable populatons of large cats. Simultaneously strong Distance Sampling: Estmatng Abundance of Biological Populatons. protecton framework is needed to safeguard the captve Chapman and Hall, London, 446pp. Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, J.L. Laake, D.L. Borcher breeding and re-stalking of wild ungulate populatons to & L. Thomas (2001). Introducton to Distance Sampling. Oxford increase sufcient prey-base for both tger and leopard. University Press, Oxford, 448pp.

15298 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson & J.L. Laake (1980). Estmaton of Insttuton Press, Washington (DC), in associaton with Struik density from line transect sampling of biological populatons. Publishers, Cape Town, 160pp; htps://doi.org/10.1086/343985 Wildlife Monograph 72: 1–202. Miquelle, D.G., E.N. Smirnov, H.G. Quigley, M.G. Hornocker, I.G. Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). The Forest Types of India. Delhi. Nikolaev & E.N. Matyushkin (1996). Food habits of Amur tgers in The Government of India press, New Delhi, 404pp. Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik and the Russian Far East, and implicatons Chakrabart, S., Y.V. Jhala, S. Duta, Q. Qureshi, R.F. Kadivar & V.J. for conservaton. Journal of Wildlife Research 1(2): 138–147. Rana (2016). Adding constraints to predaton through allometric Mondal K., S. Gupta, Q. Qureshi & K. Sankar (2011). Prey selecton relaton of scats to consumpton. Journal of Applied Ecology 85(3): and food habits of leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) in Sariska Tiger 1–11. htps://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12508 Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Mammalia 75: 201–205. Dale, B.W., L.G. Adams & R.T. Bowyer (1994). Functonal response Mondal, K, S. Bhatacharjee, S. Gupta, K. Sankar & Q. Qureshi (2013). of wolves preying on barren-ground caribou in a multple-prey Home range and resource selecton of ‘problem’ leopards trans- ecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 644-652. located to forested habitat. Current Science 105: 338–345. Daniel, J.C. (1996). The Leopard in India. Natraj Publishers, Dehra Dun, Mukherjee, S., S.P. Goyal & R. Chellam (1994a). Standardizaton 228pp. of scat analysis techniques for Leopard (Panthera pardus) in Gir Edgaonkar, A. (2008). Ecology of the leopard (Panthera pardus) in Bori Natonal Park, Western India. Mammalia 58: 139143. Wildlife Sanctuary and Satpuda Natonal Park, India. Dissertaton, Mukherjee, S., S.P. Goyal & R. Chellam (1994b). Refned techniques University of Florida, Gainseville, Florida, USA. for the analysis of Asiatc Lion Panthera leo persica scats. Acta Edgaonkar, A. & R. Chellam (1998). A preliminary study on the ecology Theriologica 39: 425430. of the Leopard, Panthera pardus fusca in Sanjay Gandhi Natonal Mukherjee, S. & N.S. Sarkar (2013). The range of prey size of the Royal Park, Maharashtra. RR-98/002. Wildlife Insttute of India, Dehadun, Bengal Tiger of Sundarbans. Journal of Ecosystems 2013: 1–7. 33pp. Narasimmarajan, K., S. Mahato & A. Parida (2014). Populaton density Eisenberg, J.F. & M. Lockhart (1972). An ecological reconnaissance of and biomass of the wild prey species in a tropical deciduous forest, Wilpatu Natonal Park, Ceylon. Smithsonian Contributon Zoology Central India. Taprobanica 06(01): 1–6. 101: 1–118. Qureshi, Q. & A. Edgaonkar (2006). Ecology of Leopard in Satpura-Bori Hayward, M.W., W. Jedrzejewski & B. Jedrzejewska (2012). Prey conservaton area, Madhya Pradesh. Final Report. Wildlife Insttute preferences of the Tiger Panthera tgris. Journal of Zoology 286: of India, Dehra Dun, 119pp. 221–231. htps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00871.x Qureshi, Q., S. Saini, P. Basu, R. Gopal, R. Raza & Y.V. Jhala Ivlev, V.S. (1961). Experimental ecology of the feeding of fshes. New (2014). Connectng Tiger Populatons for Long-term Haven, Yale University Press, 302pp. Jena J., J. Yogesh., S. Harsh, C. Conservaton. Dehradun: Natonal Tiger Conservaton Authority & Dave and J. Borah (2014). Large carnivore and prey status in Phen Wildlife Insttute of India, 288pp. Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh, India. Technical report, WWF- Rabinowitz, A. (1989). The density and behavior of large cats in a India. dry tropical forest mosaic in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Jena, J., J. Yogesh, S. Harsh, C. Dave & J. Borah (2014). Large carnivore Thailand. Natural History Bulletn of the Siam Society 37: 235–251. and prey status in Phen Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh, India. Ramesh K., J.A. Johnson, S. Sen, R.S. Murthy, M.S. Sarkar, M. Malviya, Technical report, WWF-India. S. Bhardwaj, M. Naveen, S. Roamin, V.S. Parihar & S. Gupta (2013). Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1983). Large mammalian prey-predators in Bandipur. Status of tger and prey species in Panna Tiger Reserve, Madhya Journal of Bombay Natural Historical Society 80: 1–57. Pradesh: capture-recapture and distance sampling estmates. Karanth, K.U. & M.E. Sunquist (1995). Prey selecton by tger, leopard Technical Report. Wildlife Insttute of India, Dehradun and Panna and dholes and hole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, 3pp. 64: 439–450. Ramesh, T., V. Snehalatha, K. Sankar & Q. Qureshi (2009). Food habits Kolipaka, S.S., W.L.M. Tamis, M. van ‘t Zelfde, G.A. Persoon & H.H. de and prey selecton of tger and leopard in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Iongh (2017). Wild versus domestc prey in the diet of reintroduced Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Scientfc Transacton in Environment tgers (Panthera tgris) in the livestock-dominated multple-use and Technovaton 2(3): 170–181. forests of Panna Tiger Reserve, India. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174844. Sankar, K. & A.J.T. Johnsingh (2002). Food habits of tger (Panthera Korpimäki, E. (1992). Fluctuatng food abundance determines the tgris) and leopard (Panthera pardus) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, lifetme reproductve success of male Tengmalm’s owls. Journal of Rajasthan, India, as shown by scat analysis. Mammalia 66: 285-289. Animal Ecology 61: 103-111. Sankar, K, Q. Qureshi, K. Mondal, D. Worah, T. Srivastava, S. Gupta & Krishnamurthy G., A. Rajput, A. Majumdar & Z. Ali (2016). Monitoring S. Basu (2009). Ecological studies in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. predator and prey in Kanha Tiger Reserve: 2016, Madhya Pradesh Final Report. Wildlife Insttute of India, Dehra Dun, 145pp. Forest Research Insttute, Jabalpur. Technical Report QMSP_6.3A-04, Santapillai, C., M.R. Chambers & N. Ishwaran (1982). The Leopard 16/317. Panthera pardus fusca (Meyer 1794) in the Ruhuna Natonal Park, Le Roux, P.G. & J. D. Skinner (1989). A note on the ecology of the Sri Lanka and observatons relevant to its conservaton. Biological leopard (Panthera pardus Linnaeus) in the Londolozi Game Reserve. Conservaton 23: 5-14. African Journal of Ecology 27:167–171. Schaller, G.B. (1967). The Deer and the Tiger. University Chicago press, Link W.A. & U. Karanth (1994). Correctng for over dispersion in tests Chicago, 384pp. of prey selectvity. Ecology 2456–2459. Seidenstcker, J., I. Suyono & T. Thomas (1980). The Javan tger Madhusudan, M.D. (2000). Sacred cows and the protected forest: and the Meru Betri Reserve: a plan for management. The World a study of livestock presence in wildlife reserves. CERC Technical Conservaton Union, Gland, Switzerland, 167pp. Report No. 4, Nature Conservaton Foundaton, Mysore, India. Sunquist, M.E. (1981). The social organizaton of tgers (Panthera tgris) Report Submited to Chicago Zoological Society, Chicago, USA, 25pp. in Royal Chitwan Natonal Park, Nepal. Smithsonian Contributons to Majumder, A., K. Sankar, Q. Qureshi & S. Basu (2013). Predaton Zoology 336: 1–98. htps://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.336 ecology of large sympatric carnivores as infuenced by available Schaller, G.B. (1972). The Serenget Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey wild ungulate prey in a tropical deciduous forest of Central Relatons. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pp. xiv-480. India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 1–10. htps://doi.org/10.1017/ Sidhu, S., G. Raghunathan, D. Mudappa & T.R.S. Raman. (2017). S0266467413000473 Human-Leopard interactons in a plantaton landscape in Anaimalai Mandal, D., K. Basak, R.P. Mishra, R. Kaul & K. Mondal (2017). Status hills, India. Conservaton Society 15: 474–482. of leopard Panthera pardus and striped Achanakmar Tiger Reserve, Stander, P.E., P.J. Haden, Kaqece & Ghau (1997). The ecology of a central India. Journal of Zoological Studies 4(4): 34-41. sociality in Namibian leopards. Journal of Zoology 242: 343–364. Mills, G. & M. Harvey. (2001). African predators. Smithsonian

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300 15299 J TT Diet ecology of tgers and leopards Basak et al.

Hindi abstract: taxyksa esa cM+s foMky oa’kh thoksa ds yacs le; rd cus jgus gsrq ogka ds çs&cls Acknowledgements: We express our earnest grattude to Dr. R.K. Singh, the then ;kuh f’kdkj dh miyC/krk ,d vge iSjkehVj gksrh gSA blh otg ls ,sls {ks=ksa esa tgka taxyh f’kdkjh principal chief conservator of forest (Wildlife) and Dr. S.K. Singh, additonal chief thoksa dh deh gksrh gS i’kq/ku ij fuHkZjrk c<+ tkrh gS vkSj blls ck?kksa tSls tho ds laj{k.k esa dkQh conservator of forest (Wildlife). We also convey our grattude to Mr. K. Murugan fnDdr gksrh gSA blhfy, ,sls {ks=ksa esa tgka çs&csl de gksrk gS ogka f’kdkjh thoks ds vkgkj i)fr dks (IFS), ex chief conservator of forest (Wildlife) for his initatve and contnuous le>uk fuf’pr rkSj ij t:jh gks tkrk gSA gekjk ;k v/;;u e/; Hkkjr ds de f’kdkj dh miyC/ support during the project implementaton period. We would like to thank state krk okys mnarh lhrkunh Vkbxj fjtoZ ,oa Hkksjenso vH;kj.k esa fd;k x;k ftlls ogka ds f’kdkj vkSj forest department for—their belief in Nova Nature Welfare Society, providing f’kdkjh thoks ds chp ds laca/k dks le>k tk ldsA geus VªkatSDV ykbu losZ dh enn ls v/;;u {ks= us with permission, and necessary fnancial support to conduct the study. Our esa ik, tkus okys çs csl dh çpqjrk dk irk yxk;k vkSj ik;k fd nksuksa gh LFkkuksa esa yaxwj ¼u‚FksZuZ IysUl grattude goes to Mr. Alok Tiwari (IFS) for providing us opportunity and resources yaxwj½ vkSj yky eq¡g okyk cUnj ¼jhgLl esdkd½ dh la[;k vf/kd gSA ey ds fo’ys”k.k ls irk pyk to collect data from Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary, Chhatsgarh. We are dh de f’kdkj dh miyC/krk gksus ds ckotwn ck?k phry] taxyh lwvj lfgr vf/kd ek=k esa i’kq/ku grateful to Dr. Y.V. Jhala and Mr. Q. Qureshi for their permission and facilitaton ij fuHkZj jg jgs gSa ¼39%½A blh çdkj rsanqvk ds vkgkj esa Hkh T;knkrj yaxwj ¼43&50 %½ vkSj i’kq/ku during analytcal work at WII-NTCA Tiger Cell, Wildlife Insttute of India, ¼7&9 %½ ik;k x;k gSA nksuksa gh v/;;u {ks=ksa esa taxyh [kqj/kkjh thoks dh deh gksuk] ck?k vkSj rsanq, Dehradun. We are thankful to Dr. J.A. Johnson for his permission and cordial }kjk yxkrkj i’kq/ku ;kuh eos’kh dk f’kdkj djuk bl ckr dh vksj ls lwfpr djrk gS fd ,sls taxyksa support during the laboratory works at Wildlife Insttute of India, Dehradun. We esa budh la[;k dks cuk, j[kuk vkus okys dy esa dkQh eqf’dy gksxk vFkok e/; Hkkjr esa ;fn ck?k are thankful to Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, conservaton ecologist, WII-NTCA Tiger Cell for vkSj rsanq, tSls foMky oa’kh thoks dks cpkuk gS rks ,d etcwr dk;Z ;kstuk ds lkFk&lkFk buds jgokl his background technical support during data analysis. We extend our thanks to vkSj mlesa ik, tkus okys f’kdkjh thoksa dh la[;k dks c<+kuk vR;ar vko’;d gS rHkh ge buds nwjxkeh Mr. Sunil Sharma the former sub-divisional ofcer, Udant Sitanadi TR without laj{k.k o lao/kZu dks lqfuf’pr dj ldsaxs A whose directon, it might be impossible to collect data from the tough terrain of Udant Sitanadi Tiger Reserve. We would also like to thank the range ofcers of Bhoramdeo WS and Udant Sitanadi TR whose directons to the staf had made the project possible and convenient for us. It may not be possible to conclude the project without the help of Dr. Rakesh Verma (veterinary expert, Nandanvan Jungle Safari) who allowed us to use the Nandanvan laboratory for hair analysis of the scats collected from the feld. At the end, we would like to convey our sincere thanks to Mr. Ramakrishna Rapur (Friends of Snake, Hyderabad) for his valuable contributon during feldwork, and biologist Mr. Chiranjivi Sinha for his rigorous contributon in feld during the tger monitoring program. We also thank the entre team from Nova Nature Welfare Society for their contributon in the feld work and all the frontline forest staf from both the protected areas for their assistance during the whole study.

Threatened Taxa

15300 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2020 | 12(3): 15289–15300

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

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

February 2020 | Vol. 12 | No. 3 | Pages: 15279–15406 Date of Publicaton: 26 February 2020 (Online & Print) www.threatenedtaxa.org DOI: 10.11609/jot.2020.12.3.15279-15406

Review New record of Tulostoma squamosum (Agaricales: Basidiomycota) from India based on morphological features and phylogenetc analysis Ramifcatons of reproductve diseases on the recovery of the – Arun Kumar Duta, Soumitra Paloi & Krishnendu Acharya , Pp. 15375– Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis (Mammalia: 15381 Perissodactyla: Rhinocerotdae) – Nan E. Schafer, Muhammad Agil & Zainal Z. Zainuddin, Pp. 15279–15288 Notes

Communicatons An account of a frst record of the Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves: Anseriformes: Anatdae) Diet ecology of tgers and leopards in Chhatsgarh, central India in Bhutan – Krishnendu Basak, Moiz Ahmed, M. Suraj, B.V. Reddy, O.P. Yadav & – Sangay Nidup, Gyeltshen & Tshering Tobgay, Pp. 15382–15384 Krishnendu Mondal, Pp. 15289–15300 First record of the hawkmoth Theretra lycetus (Cramer, 1775) Building walls around open wells prevent Asiatc Lion Panthera leo persica (Sphingidae: Macroglossinae) from Bhutan (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae) mortality in the Gir Lion Landscape, – Sangay Nidup & Jatshwor Singh Irungbam, Pp. 15385–15386 Gujarat, India – Tithi Kagathara & Erach Bharucha, Pp. 15301–15310 Occurrence and associaton of the Scarce Lilacfork Lethe dura gammiei (Moore, [1892]) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Taxonomic and ecological notes on some poorly known bats Satyrinae) with Woolly-leaved Oak Quercus lanata Smith, 1819 (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Meghalaya, India (Fabaceae) forest in the Kumaon region of the Indian Himalaya – Utam Saikia, AdoraThabah & Manuel Ruedi, Pp. 15311–15325 – Arun P. Singh & Tribhuwan Singh, Pp. 15387–15390

Angiosperm diversity in Bhadrak region of Odisha, India Additons to the Odonata (Insecta) fauna of Asansol-Durgapur – Taranisen Panda, Bikram Kumar Pradhan, Rabindra Kumar Mishra, Industrial Area, West Bengal, India Srust Dhar Rout & Raj Ballav Mohanty, Pp. 15326–15354 – Amar Kumar Nayak, Pp. 15391–15394

Gynochthodes cochinchinensis (DC.) Razafm. & B. Bremer (Morindeae: Short Communicatons Rubioideae: Rubiaceae): an additon to the woody climbers of India – Pradeep Kumar Kamila, Prabhat Kumar Das, Madhusmita Mallia, Sightng of Petaurista petaurista (Pallas, 1766) (Mammalia: Rodenta: Chinnamadasamy Kalidass, Jagayandat Pat & Pratap Chandra Panda, Sciuridae) on limestone hills in Merapoh, Malaysia Pp. 15395–15399 – Priscillia Miard, Mohd Nur Arifuddin, Izereen Mukri, Sit Syuhada Sapno, Hafz Yazid, Nadine Ruppert & Jayaraj Vijaya Kumaran, Pp. 15355–15358 Record of Oldenlandia hygrophila Bremek. (Spermacoceae: Rubiaceae), a lesser known herb from Palghat Gap of Western Ghats, Kerala, India Molecular detecton of Murshidia linstowi in a free-ranging dead – Vadakkeveedu Jagadesh Aswani, Vasudevan Ambat Rekha, Pathiyil elephant calf Arabhi, Manjakulam Khadhersha Jabeena, Kunnamkumarath Jisha & – Sourabh Ranjan Hota, Sonali Sahoo, Manojita Dash, Avisek Pahari, Maya Chandrashekaran Nair, Pp. 15400–15404 Bijayendranath Mohanty & Niranjana Sahoo, Pp. 15359–15363

Parasite commonality at Swamp Deer (Mammalia: Artodactyla: Book Review Cervidae: duvaucelii duvaucelii) and livestock interface – Animesh Talukdar, Bivash Pandav & Parag Nigam, Pp. 15364–15369 The State of Wildlife and Protected Areas in Maharashtra: News and Informaton from the Protected Area Update 1996-2015 Prevalence and seasonal variaton of gastrointestnal parasites – Reviewed by L.A.K. Singh, Pp. 15405–15406 among captve Northern Pig-tailed Macaque Macaca leonina (Mammalia: Primates: Cercopithecidae) – Phoebe Lalremruat & G.S. Solanki, Pp. 15370–15374 Publisher & Host

Member

Threatened Taxa