The Status of the Persian Leopard in Bamu National Park, Iran
Arash Ghoddousi1, Amir Hossein Kh. Hamidi1, Taher Ghadirian1, Delaram Ashayeri1, Hamed Moshiri1 and Igor Khorozyan2
he Persian leopard Panthera The first efforts at leopard research tion and the hilly plains between them pardus saxicolor is the largest and conservation in BNP began in the (Fig. 2). Topographically, BNP is con- Tmember of eight felid species 1970’s by Bijan F. Dareshouri, the fined to the northern macro-slope of surviving today in Iran, after the ex- nation’s premier wildlife scientist and the Zagros Mts. Elevations range from tinction of the Asiatic lion Panthera conservationist, who used surveys of 1600 to 2700 m. The climate is semi- leo persica and the Caspian tiger signs of presence and direct observa- arid temperate, with hot and dry sum- Panthera tigris virgata in the past 70 tions (B. F. Dareshouri, pers. comm. mers and cold, humid winters (Dar- years. The stronghold of this endan- 2008). He guesstimated that 15-20 vishsefat 2006). The western part of gered subspecies is Iran. Over the leopards live in BNP (Kiabi et al. BNP is separated by the Isfahan-Shiraz past 25 years the Persian leopard 2002). highway and is deprived of large mam- was exterminated in many areas of In June 2007, the Persian leopard malian fauna due to poaching. Only its global range and in the others its project was initiated to assess the sta- the eastern part of BNP (360 km2) has numbers have plummeted. Bamu Na- tus and structure of the leopard popula- been effectively protected and is rich tional Park (BNP) has long been one tion, to study the ecology, and to launch in biodiversity. of the best habitats for the subspecies targeted conservation actions in BNP. Camera-trapping was carried out in southern Iran, but leopards there This paper presents and discusses in eastern BNP from late September face severe threats nowadays. our results from camera-trapping to as- 2007 until late May 2008, using the 35 sess the status of the leopard in BNP. mm film passive camera photo-traps The leopard occurs widely in al- Stealthcam MC2-GV. We used 30 most all types of habitats in Iran: Methods photo-traps at first, but then 2 of them snow-capped heights of the Alborz BNP (also referred to as Bamoo or failed and 8 more were stolen. For con- and Zagros mountains, rolling hills Bamou) occupies an area of 485.94 km2 venience, this area was divided into 5 in central Iran, dense and humid for- in Fars Province to the north-east topographically distinct areas which ests along the Caspian Sea coast and of Shiraz city between 29º36’24” were camera-trapped one after another. arid cliffs and mountains fringing the and 29º53’12” N and 52º29’37” and The photo-traps were set up along the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea (Firouz 52º54’12” E (Fig. 1; Darvishsefat established leopard trails (recognized 2005). The leopard range covers about 2006). Established in 1967 and up- from presence signs) on ridge tops and 850,000 km2 of prey-sufficient habitats graded to a national park in 1970, it in valleys to ensure uniform coverage. and avoids only the vast deserts of cen- encompasses three parallel mountain The devices were mounted at ca. 40 cm tral Iran (Kiabi et al. 2002). ridges extending in an west-east direc- above the ground on posts made of flat
Fig. 1. Location of Bamu National Park in southern Iran (top) and location of the camera-trap stations within the defined areas in Bamu National Park (bottom). White spots are the stations with captures of the leopards with individual IDs and black spots are the stations without captures. Leopard IDs: M1 – Adult male, M2 – Sub-adult male, F1 – Female with cub, F2 and F3 – Adult females and F4 – Sub-adult female. The numbers 1 to 6 indicate the distinct areas of which the areas 1 to 5 were camera-trapped during this study.
10 Autumn 2008 this, we used the single-season subpro- gramme of freely downloadable PRE- SENCE 2.0 software. In the input form, we inserted 1’s (leopard captures) and 0’s (no captures) across the 21 sam- pling occasions (see above) and the 50 camera-trap stations (10 stations/area x 5 areas, see above). We used 6 pre-de- fined models which consider detection probability either constant or survey- specific and the sampled population as consisting of 1-3 arbitrary groups (MacKenzie et al. 2006).
Results The sampling effort of 1012 trap- nights yielded 31 independent leopard Fig. 2. A typical landscape of Bamu National Park (Photo T. Ghadirian). captures, resulting in a relative abun- dance index of 3.06 captures/100 trap- nights. The total number of leopard stones and on trees. Each camera-trap ence of cubs (females) and general pictures was 72, but only 27 captures station consisted of two photo-traps appearance (much larger body size, were used in the X-matrix due to re- placed not far from each other on the plump muzzle, wider chest and broader captures within an occasion. We pho- opposite sides of a trail so as to photo- front limbs in males). Individuals were tographed 7 individual leopards across graph leopards from both flanks. The recognized from their unique spot and 21 sampling occasions: 1 adult male, photo-traps were set for 24-hour op- rosette patterns on flanks and limbs 1 sub-adult male, 1 female with cub, eration, dual photography regime and (Henschel & Ray 2003, Kostyria et al. 2 adult females and 1 sub-adult female 1-minute intervals between successive 2003, Spalton et al. 2006). (Fig. 3). photographs. The sites of all photo- We constructed the X-matrix of The sampling efforts in each of traps were located by GPS Garmin 60 capture histories for individual leo the five areas differed significantly CS and plotted on the map in ArcGIS pards, excluding the dependent cub about the mean (χ2 = 14.51, df = 4, P = 9.0 for measurements, e.g. to define the (0’s for no captures, 1’s for captures) 0.006), but this variation did not affect boundary strip (see below). and used CAPTURE software to esti- the numbers of individuals captured The design of our study was identi- 2 mate the leopard abundance and check (r = 0.39, F1,3 = 1.95, P = 0.257) nor cal to that described by Karanth et al. the hypothesis of population closure the numbers of independent leopard (2004). As we had 20 photo-traps and (Karanth 1995, Karanth & Nichols photographs taken in each area (r2 = had to cover 5 areas with similar sam- 1998). Population density was estima 0.25, F1,3 = 1.02, P = 0.387). This dif- pling effort, we set up the photo-traps ted by dividing the estimate of popu- ference in sampling effort was caused in 20 sites (10 camera-trap stations, 2 lation size by the effective area which by difficult accessibility of some parts units/station) within each area, for 21 includes the area confined within the of BNP, trail obstructions in winter, successive days which corresponded to outer camera-trap stations and the theft and the malfunctioning of some battery life. Thus, there were 21 sam- boundary strip (Henschel & Ray 2003, camera-traps. pling occasions, each of which com- Soisalo & Cavalcanti 2006). The model M(o) implying constant bined captures from 5 days of photo- We also estimated leopard occu- capture probabilities for individual trapping (1 day from each area). pancy, i.e. part of the study area actual- leopards had the best fit (model se- Photo-captured animals were sexed ly inhabited and used by the species, as lection criterion = 1.0) and the model from external genitalia (males), pres- described by Linkie et al. (2007). For M(h) of heterogeneity in capture pro babilities was ranked the second (0.97). Nonetheless, we have chosen M(h) as Table 1. Results of occupancy modeling of the leopard population in Bamu National Park. its population estimator is robust and Abbreviations: p – detection probability, AIC – Akaike’s Information Criterion, ML – model most relevant to solitary felids in com- likelihood, ψ – occupancy, SE – standard error. parison with M(o) (Karanth & Nich- Model AIC weight ML ψ ± SE p ± SE ols 1998, Karanth et al. 2004, Maffei sum = 1 et al. 2004). Indeed, the wide-ranging 1 group, constant p 0.80 1.00 0.56 ± 0.13 0.05 ± 0.01 adult male had a much higher chance 2 arbitrary groups, constant p 0.11 0.14 0.56 ± 0.13 0.05 ± 0.01 of being photographed (12 out of 21 1 group, survey-specific p 0.08 0.10 0.54 ± 0.12 0.05 ± 0.04 sampling occasions, 57.1%) compared with his conspecifics (females on 2-4 3 arbitrary groups, constant p 0.01 0.02 0.56 ± 2.44 0.05 ± 1.86 occasions (9.5-19.0%) and the sub-
CAT News 49 11 Fig. 3. The leopard photo-captures in Bamu National Park: adult female with cub (top left), adult male (top right), adult female (bottom left) and sub-adult female (bottom right; photos Plan for the Land Society).
adult male on 3 occasions or 14.3%). camera-trap stations is constant, that curing the survival of this cat (Kiabi The goodness-of-fit of M(h) was sta- the population is represented by a sin- et al. 2002). Using the guesstimates tistically significant (χ2 = 27.13, df = gle group, and that leopard occupancy of leopard numbers in some protected 20, P = 0.13). Jackknife was the best in BNP is similar across the models areas of Iran (Kiabi et al. 2002) and estimator of population abundance. (Table 1). Weighted mean occupancy, the sizes of these areas (Darvishsefat The assumption of population closure i.e. the sum of the products of AIC 2006), the following rough estimates was not violated (z = -0.22, P = 0.41). weight and occupancy in each model, of leopard densities can be obtained: The number of leopards in BNP es- is 0.56 so the leopard occupancy in 3.4-5.1 leopards/100 km2 in Golestan timated by jackknife M(h) was 6.00 BNP varies around 56% of the study and Tandoreh national parks, 3.1-4.1 ± SE 0.24 individuals, with the 95% area. This occupancy is 47% higher in Bamu National Park, 2.0-3.3 in Ja- confidence interval 6-6 individuals. It than the naïve estimate of occupancy han Nama Protected Area and 0.5-1.1 is most likely that such a narrow log- (0.38 or 38%, 19 out of 50 camera-trap in Dena Protected Area. normal confidence interval was an ar- stations) due to several non-detections The most urgent threat is the ever- tifact of the small sample size (Karanth when present, which are ignored in the increasing fragmentation into a patchy 1995, Haines et al. 2006). The average naïve estimate. network of distant and often too small capture probability of individual leop- sub-populations. Prey reduction from ards in a sampling occasion (p-hat) poaching, infrastructure development, was 0.21. Discussion disturbance and habitat loss (collection The mean maximum distance The Persian leopard is the largest sub- of edible plants, mining, road construc- moved (MMDM), calculated as the species of this cat which is classified in tion, deforestation, fire and livestock arithmetic mean of the maximum dis- the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened grazing) are the driving forces of range tances moved (MDM) by 6 individuals Species as “Endangered”. The leop- fragmentation, leaving vast tracts between recaptures (0.62-12.38 km), ard is fully protected by laws issued of mountainous habitats unsuitable was 5.01 ± 1.72 km. The boundary strip by Iran’s Department of Environment for resident leopard subpopulations was half of MMDM or 2.50 ± 0.86 km. (DoE). Kiabi et al. (2002) have guess- (Khorozyan et al. 2005, Lukarevsky et The effective area was 321.12 km2, so timated the leopard population in Iran al. 2007). Only a handful of protected the leopard density was 1.87 ± 0.07 in- to number 550-850 individuals, which areas (all in Iran) are large enough to dividuals/100 km2. results in a crude density of 0.06-0.1 maintain viable Persian leopard sub- The best fit occupancy model hav- individuals/100 km2. However, the populations (Kiabi et al. 2002, Brei ing the highest Akaike’s Information leopard density is much higher inside tenmoser et al. 2007). In Iran, direct Criterion (AIC) weight shows that the protected areas (including BNP) which poaching occurs as shooting to alle detection probability of leopards in are quite large and thus capable of se- viate predation on livestock (Kiabi et
12 Autumn 2008 al. 2002, Farhadinia et al. 2007, Abdo- tor the course of conservation efforts Karanth K.U. and Nichols J.D. 1998. Esti- li et al. 2008). It is not widespread, but and the leopard’s response to them. mation of tiger densities in India using makes a substantial impact on popula- photographic captures and recaptures. tion viability due to the small popula- Acknowledgements Ecology 79, 2852-2862. Khorozyan I., Malkhasyan A. and Asmary- tion size. We sincerely thank B.H. Kiabi, B.F. Dare- an S. 2005. The Persian leopard prowls The leopard density in BNP is shouri and P. Henschel for provision of information. Our deep gratitude goes also its way to survival. Endangered Species much higher than generally in Iran to personnel of the Plan for the Land So- Update 22, 51-60. (see above) and than in two other areas ciety and H. Zohrabi (head of Biodiversity Kiabi B.H., Dareshouri B.F., Ghaemi R.A. where it was estimated from camera Bureau, Fars office of the Department of and Jahanshahi M. 2002. Population photo-trapping: in Jabal Samhan Nature Environment) for kind and constant sup- status of the Persian leopard (Panthera Reserve in Oman (0.4 ind./100 km2; port of the project. Financial support for pardus saxicolor Pocock,1927) in Iran. Spalton et al. 2006), and in the Russian this project was generously provided by Zoology in the Middle East 26, 41-47. Far East (1.1-1.2 ind./100 km2; Kosty- individual Iranian donors, especially Mr. Kostyria A.V., Skorodelov A.S., Miquelle D.G., Aramilev V.V. and McCullough ria et al. 2003). Quite a high density Navid Shahrouzi. D. 2003. Results of camera trap survey of territorial markers such as scrapes References of Far Eastern leopard population in is further evidence (Ghoddousi et al. Abdoli A., Ghadirian T., Khaleghi Hamidi southwest Primorski Krai, winter 2002- 2008). However, the leopard density is A., Mostafavi H., Moshiri H., Pour’salem 2003. Vladivostok, 22 pp. lower than in equatorial rain forest in S. and Ghoddousi A. 2008. First evi- Linkie M., Dinata Y., Nugroho A. and Hai- Gabon (2.7-12.1 ind./100 km2) where dence of Persian leopard from Khaeez dir I.A. 2007. Estimating occupancy the same photographic capture-recap- area, southern Iran. Cat News 48, 17. of a data deficient mammalian species ture technique was used (P. Henschel Breitenmoser U., Breitenmoser-Würsten living in tropical rainforests, sun bears pers. comm. 2008). C., Mörschel F., Zazanashvili N. and in the Kerinci Seblat region, Sumatra. Biological Conservation 137, 20-27. Our estimate of leopard density in Sylven M. 2007. General conditions for Lukarevsky V., Akkiev M., Askerov E., BNP is much lower than previously the conservation of the leopard in the Caucasus. Cat News Special Issue 2, Agili A., Can E., Gurielidze G., Kuda- estimated (Kiabi et al. 2002). Whether 34-39. ktin A.N., Malkhasyan A. and Yaroven- this discrepancy indicates a population Darvishsefat A.A. 2006. Atlas of protect- ko Y.A. 2007. Status of the leopard in decline is unknown, as completely dif- ed areas of Iran. University of Tehran the Caucasus. Cat News Special Issue ferent methodologies were used in the Press, 157pp. 2, 15-21. two cases. Farhadinia M., Nezami B., Mahadavi A. MacKenzie D.I., Nichols J.D., Royle J.A., Leopard occupancy in BNP is sig- and Hatami K. 2007. Photos of Persian Pollock K.H., Bailey L.L. and Hines J.E. nificantly higher when non-detections leopard in Alborz Mountains, Iran. Cat 2006. Occupancy estimation and mod- eling: inferring patterns and dynamics at presence (false absence) are taken News 46, 34-35. of species occurrence. Academic Press, into account. This often happens with Firouz E. 2005. The complete fauna of Iran. London I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., 322 pp. 324 pp. secretive and rare species (MacKenzie Ghoddousi A., Khaleghi Hamidi A., Ghad- Maffei L., Cuellar E. and Noss A. 2004. et al. 2006). The leopard, despite being irian T., Ashayeri D., Hamzehpour M., One thousand jaguars (Panthera onca) a naturally cryptic species, is at least Moshiri H., Zohrabi H. and Julayi L. in Bolivia’s Chaco? Camera trapping in vulnerable in BNP in the face of cur- 2008. Territorial marking by Persian the Kaa-Iya National Park. Journal of rent threats. leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Zoology, London 262, 295-304. The principal threat to leopard in Pocock, 1927) in Bamu National Park, Soisalo M.K. and Cavalcanti S.M.C. 2006. BNP is ever-increasing fragmentation Iran. Zoology in the Middle East 44, Estimating the density of a jaguar popu- lation in the Brazilian Pantanal using caused by the Isfahan-Shiraz highway 101-103. camera-traps and capture-recapture and agricultural lands; these split habi- Haines A.M., Janecka J.E., Tewes M.E., Grassman Jr. J.E. and Morton P. 2006. sampling in combination with GPS ra- tats apart and eases access for poachers The importance of private lands for oce- dio-telemetry. Biological Conservation and shepherds. lot Leopardus pardalis conservation in 129, 487-496. In summer 2008 we started the Ruf- the United States. Oryx 40, 90-94. Spalton A., Al Hikmani H.M., Willis D. and ford Small Grant project to improve Henschel P. and Ray J. 2003. Leopards in Said A.S.B. 2006. Critically endangered leopard conservation in BNP through African rainforests. Survey and moni- Arabian leopards Panthera pardus nimr intensive campaigning and the estab- toring techniques. WCS Global Carni- persist in the Jabal Samhan Nature Re- lishment of the game wardens’ Persian vore Program, 50 pp. serve, Oman. Oryx 40, 287-294. Karanth K.U. 1995. Estimating tiger Pan- Leopard Trust. We also plan to expand 1 leopard research and monitoring in thera tigris populations from camera- Plan for the Land Society, Tehran, Iran trap data using capture-recapture mo
CAT News 49 13