1

FOREWORD TO VOLUME ONE

Volume I of the Management Plan presents current knowledge and data about Lore Lindu NP - as of 2001. Background information detailing the Park’s conservation values, history, climate, geology, river drainage and land systems has been compiled from discussions, literature searches and field visits. Major advances in Park data collection and storage have been made since 2000 in order to provide necessary information for the management plan. Surveys were undertaken on behalf of the Park Authority and these were co-ordinated by TNC. A variety of specialists were contracted to carry them out, wherever possible assisted by local NGOs.

For the first time a reliable vegetation map now exists; developed from Landsat reflectance values and extensive ground truthing, it describes nine major vegetation types. Further sub-division of the Park into habitat types has been achieved by combining the vegetation map with RePPProT land systems. Faunal, demographic, hydrological, and megalith surveys have given much improved information on which to base management decisions.

In order to handle all the data necessary for the management plan a Lore Lindu NP Geographic Information System was developed. This is now one of the best and, possibly, the most integrated national park GIS in current use in Indonesia. This powerful tool has allowed the production of a large variety of maps, including that of negative change analysis showing forest loss in and around the Park. It is hoped that future revisions of the management plan will be able to build on the data that is presented in this current document as there is still much that is unknown. Amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and non-vascular plants, hydrology and megaliths all need to be subjected to further, in-depth investigation.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 2

PREFACE

National park Planning must take into account the physical and biological nature of a conservation area, but more than this it must consider the socio-economic and political environment in which decisions are taken. The Lore Lindu Management Plan has made a big effort to do just this, incorporating ideas from many sources. The writing of a management plan is something of a balancing act in which national laws and regulations, conservation needs, the aspirations of local people and other stakeholders are all given necessary attention.

The Lore Lindu Management Plan has been written at a time of great change and upheaval in Indonesia society. Gone are the rigid directives of central planning and in their place are the needs and aspirations of the Park’s diverse stakeholders.

In writing of the management plan national guidelines were adhered to. This gave a basic structure to the document. Importantly, nothing was included in the management plan that was contrary to Indonesian law. This may appear an obvious point but national laws are being questioned as never before, and with them the right of the national park authority to implement conservation-related laws. Some groups are exerting pressure on park managers to allow activities that are counter to planning laws. A case in point is the pressure to allow commercial harvesting of wood and rattan in the traditional use zone of the Park. The plan resists the temptation to deem legal illegal activities that cannot at present be stopped. Instead a flexible approach has been sought that finds new ways to manage the Park which is inclusive of stakeholders.

Fundamental to this was the establishment of an overall park philosophy. The plan for the first time presents a management philosophy for Lore Lindu NP. The plan has in its mission statement the guiding concept of collaborative management, which embraces the idea of people and park staff working together to bring about conservation. This is a new and exciting innovative approach, and one that has great relevance to many other national parks in Indonesia.

Jakarta, DATE Director General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 3

ADMINISTRATION

The Management Plan compilation at national level came under the jurisdiction and guidance of the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation within the Indonesian Forestry Ministry. Financial Assistance was provided by USAID’s Natural Resources Management II Programme as part of its Building Conservation Capacity and Partnerships at Lore Lindu National Park (Grant No. 497-G-00- 99-00004-00). Technical services were provided by The Nature Conservancy - Indonesia Programme. Administratively, on a day-to-day level, the Plan was directed through the National Park Authority Balai Taman Nasional Lore Lindu.

PLAN CO-ORDINATION

Widodo S. Ramono : Director of Conservation areas within PHKA Ir. Banjar Yulianto Laban : Head of Lore Lindu National Park I Ketut Djati : USAID/NRM Project Officer Dr Darrell Kitchener : Director of TNC - IP Terrestrial Conservation Programmes

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many agencies assisted in the writing of the Lore Lindu NP Management Plan. The National Park Authority played a central role and supported the project with advice, particularly that related to Plan structure and contents. The various NGOs subsumed within the Forum Kemitraan Lore Lindu provided many valuable suggestions. Thanks must also go to the other participants of the many management plan workshops for sharing their insights and concerns.

The task of getting the Lore Lindu Management Plan written was given to Keith M Harris, who was appointed as the Park’s and Planning Advisor. He painstakingly oversaw the bringing together of the Plan’s component parts as well as writing many of the chapters. In doing this he liaised with Duncan Neville, the Lore Lindu Field Office programme manager. Warm appreciation must go to two TNC Jakarta-based staff for their co-ordinating roles. Firstly to Darrell Kitchener, for providing invaluable guidance and direction. He ensured that the Plan kept on course, gave in-depth advice and suggested improvements to the text. Secondly, Tiene Gunawan, who undertook the necessary organisation involved with getting the layout, translation and printing completed.

Each of the four volumes that make up the Management plan are very distinct in content and thus required different expertise.

Volume I. This was very factual. Dr Charles Cannon was the author of the vegetation chapter and Edward Pollard, Lore Lindu NP Science Advisor was the main author of the chapter on the Park’s fauna. Several specialists were also involved in the collection of field data: Wahyu Raharjaningtrah and Christian Memengko for that related to birds; Ibnu Marianto and Mohamed Yani for small mammals. James Burton lead the large mammals survey and was author of the anoa section; with Stefan Merker providing information on the tarsier. The Plan includes much new data that were based on recently conducted surveys. The NGOs Katupasa, Jambata and Kayu Riva merit special mention for undertaking surveys on megaliths, maleo and human population respectively.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 4

Volume II. This book was mainly concerned with issues and strategies. Many senior planners gave important direction to this volume. In particular, Herri Djoko Susilo, Head of the Sub-directorate for protected area conservation, Agoes Sriyanto head PIKA (Pusat Informasi Konservasi Alam), Ir. M Z Hudiono, Head of BKSDA Sulawesi Tengah. Where applicable, information, modified from existing reports has been included. The rattan section is a précis of report by Stephen Siebert and the section on perennial cash crops was in part written by John Finisdore. Valuable insights concerning environmental education were contributed by Sugiyani and the rest of the Community Awareness team. Volume III This volume was concerned with Site Planning and was compiled from three sources: firstly, from the report of the Site Conservation team, including Ismet Khaeruddin, Daryatun, Zarlief and Effendi Kindangen; secondly, from the report of the Community Mapping team, including Marius Ladasi, Nurnaena Agus, Erson Robby Tungka and Tengko Wolok; and thirdly from the boundary condition surveys undertaken by Bahar Umar.

Volume IV This book is a summary of the other three volumes. Much credit is owing to Lisa Owen as the main editor of this document. Technically, volume IV is not a legal requirement of Indonesian management planning but is considered a very important innovation as a means of conveying the main ideas of the Plan to local planners and communities around Lore Lindu NP.

Particular mention must go to the TNC support team in Palu. Helmi played a co-ordination role between the TNC team and the National Park Authority. Pinkan was of great assistance in workshop preparation and Danny played an essential role in helping to direct and record workshop contents as well as undertaking much necessary translation.

The Plan was very fortunate to be able to utilise the technical spatial planning abilities of Martin Hardiono and his protégée Bambang Yudha Setyo. The inclusion of the various maps in the Management Plan is due to their technical GIS skills and professional commitment.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 87

9. FAUNA OF LORE LINDU NATIONAL PARK

9.1 Introduction

Sulawesi is well known as a biogeographical wonder. Its location, to the east of Wallace’s line but close to the Sunda plate, and its formation from several separate islands (see section 3.1), has resulted in a mix of Oriental and Australasian fauna. Additionally the long isolation of the island and its constituent parts has resulted in a higher rate of endemic taxa than any other Indonesian island. Most of these endemics are dependent on forest, often with an altitude related distribution. Although some groups, notably mammals and birds are better known than others, Lore Lindu NP with its wide range of vegetation types, is representative of the unique fauna of Sulawesi.

9.2 Biodiversity research in Lore Lindu National Park

During 2000 and 2001 a series of intensive biodiversity surveys took place in the Park. These were designed to build on previous research, and assess the diversity and distribution of species in the Park. These surveys, to be carried out by the Central Sulawesi Integrated Area Development and Conservation Project (CSIADCP) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), focused on groups that were:

! Taxonomically well known; ! Easy to survey and possible to census in any season; ! Identifiable by taxonomic experts available in Indonesia

The following groups were chosen:

! Ferns (Survey co-ordinated by CSIADCP); ! Birds (Survey co-ordinated by TNC); ! Mammals (Survey co-ordinated by TNC); ! Reptiles and Frogs (Survey co-ordinated by CSIADCP); ! Dung beetles (Survey co-ordinated by CSIADCP); ! Dominant plant species (co-ordinated by CSIADCP).

To date (June 2001), the mammal and bird surveys have been completed; preliminary results are presented below. The plant, herpatofauna and dung beetle surveys have yet to be carried out.

9.3 Birds (aves)

The avifauna of Sulawesi is highly indicative of the unique biodiversity of the island. Located at the western end of the Wallacea bioregion, it is home to both Oriental and Australasian bird taxa. As the largest island in Wallacea, Sulawesi has the richest avifauna in the region, with 224 resident species recorded. Compared to other islands in the Malay Archipelago, Sulawesi is relatively poor in species, for example 340 resident bird species have been reported from the smaller island of Java (MacKinnon et al 1996). Levels of endemism, on the other hand, are very high in Sulawesi. Of the 224 species resident on mainland Sulawesi, 41 are endemic, with ten endemic genera. In addition to this, another 56 species (four more genera) are confined to Sulawesi and/or its satellite islands (Coates and Bishop 1997). Borneo, in contrast, with a land area approximately four times that of Sulawesi and 420 resident bird species, has only 37 endemic species and five endemic genera (Mackinnon et al 1996).

This very high level of endemism means that the Sulawesi subregion has been classified by Birdlife International as an Endemic Bird Area (EBA) (see section 1.2.3). The Sulawesi EBA has 42 endemic restricted-range species; another 12 are found in the Sulawesi and other EBAs (table 9.1).

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 88

Species (Ordered Geographically) Togian Islands N Sulawesi Islands Minahasa Central Sulawesi East Peninsula South-east Peninsula South Peninsula / Muna Buton Other EBA's Ducula Concinna • ------Prioniturus flavicans • • • ------Coracina bicolor • • • • • • • • • Cittura cyanotis - • • • • • - - • Actenoides monachus - • • • • • • - - Ceyx fallax - • • • - • • - • Macrocephalon maleo - • • • • • - • - Basilornis celebensis - • • • • • • • - Ducula luctuosa - • • • - • - • • Cyornis sanfordi - - • ------Eurostopodus diabolicus - - • • - - - - - Tyto inexpectata - - • • - - - - - Ptilinopus subgularis - - • • • - - - • Aramidopsis plateni - - • • - • - - - Amaurornis isabellinus - - • • - • - - - Cryptophaps poecilorrhoa - - • • - • - - - Loriculus exilis - - • • - • - - - Meropogon forsteni - - • • - • - - - Gymnocrex rosenbergii - - • • - • - - • Scolopax celebensis - - • • - - • - - Accipiter nanus - - • • - • • - - Gallicolumba tristigmata - - • • - • • - - Ducula forsteni - - • • - • • - - Ducula radiata - - • • - • • - - Cuculus crassironstris - - • • - • • - - Actenoides princeps - - • • - • • - - Coracina abbotti - - • • - • • - - Geomalia heinrichi - - • • - • • - - Heinrichia calligyna - - • • - • • - - Malia grata - - • • - • • - - Phyloscopus sarasinorum - - • • - • • - - Ficedula rufigula - - • • - • • - - Hylocitrea bonensis - - • • - • • - - Coracornis raveni - - • • - • • - - Pachycephala sulfuriventer - - • • - • • - - Dicaeum nehrkorni - - • • - • • - - Lophozosterops squamiceps - - • • - • • - - Myza celebensis - - • • - • • - - Myza sarasinorum - - • • - • • - - Enodes erythrophris - - • • - • • - - Dicrurus montanus - - • • - • • - - Trichoglossus flavoviridis - - • • - • • - • Zoothera erythronota - - • • - • • - • Bradypterus castaneus - - • • - • • - • Rhipidura teysmanni - - • • - • • - • Ptilinopus fischeri - - • • • • • - - Coracina temminckii - - • • • • • - - Ninox ochracea - - • • • • - • - Serinus estherae - - - • - - - - • Cataponera turdoides - - - • - • • - - Cyornis hoevelli - - - • - • • - - Zosterops consobrinorium - - - - - • - • - Ficedula bonthaina ------• - - Zosterops anomalus ------• - - Total 3 8 47 48 9 44 36 6 12

Table 9.1 Distribution of restricted-range species in Sulawesi Source: Stattersfield et al 1998

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 89

Above : Malao (Macrocephalon maleo) displaying at one of the 9 nesting sites in the Park. (photo TNC/Jez O’Hare)

Left : female Red Knobbed Hornbill (Rhycticeros cassidix). One of the Park’s most distinctive birds, the male of this endemic species is featured on the Park logo.(photo TNC/Jez O’Hare)

Below : Papilio blumia, one of the many beautiful endemic butterflies found in the park (photo D.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 90

Above: Babirusa (Babyrousa babyrussa). This endangered relative of pigs is still found in small numbers in the Park.

Right : Bear cuscus (Ailurops ursinus). One of two marsupial species found in the park.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 91

Left: Sulawesi palm civet. (Macrogalidia musschenbroekii). This elusive animal is the Park’s largest carnivorous mammal (photo: TNC/D. Neville)

Above : Anoa (Anoa sp.). This endemic dwarf buffalo is rarely seen but still abundant in remote parts of the Park (photo: TNC/Jez O’Hare) Left : Tonkean Macaque (Macaca tonkeana). Still common in the Park particularly in lower regions. (photo TNC/D. Bason)

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 92

9.3.1 Birds of Lore Lindu National Park

Table 9.1 clearly shows the importance of the central region of Sulawesi, the area where Lore Lindu is located. This region is home to 48 of the 54 restricted-range species, and an additional 16 species that are endemic to the EBA but not considered as restricted-range species. 45 of these species are also found in the Minahasa peninsula, and south and south-east peninsulas of Sulawesi, indicating that the forests of central Sulawesi form a vital bridge for bird populations of northern and southern Sulawesi. Without the forests of central Sulawesi, these bird populations would become fragmented, and the survival of many of these species could be at risk. Lore Lindu, the largest conservation area in central Sulawesi, is therefore vital to the conservation of Sulawesi’s unique avifauna.

To date, 225 species of birds have been recorded in the Park, including 78 Sulawesi endemics, and 46 restricted-range species. The Park, therefore, is home to 80% and 82% of Sulawesi’s endemic and restricted range species respectively. These include such well-known species as the Maleo (Macrocephalon maleo) (see below) and Red-knobbed Hornbill (Rhyticeros cassidix), a species that is featured in the logo of the Park, but also includes some more enigmatic species such as the Sulawesi Woodcock (Scolopax celebenis), Geomalia (Geomalia heinrichi) and Satanic Nightjar (Eurostopodus diabolicus). For a complete list of birds recorded in Lore Lindu NP, see appendix II.

9.4 Lore Lindu Bird Survey1

To gain greater understanding of the avifauna of the Park and to investigate the extent to which bird distributions are related to different variables, a large-scale study was carried out in the Park (2000 – 2001).

9.4.1 Survey Locations

To sample the available physiology, rainfall and vegetation types in the Park, each of the 24 major habitat types2 (see section 7.3 for more detail) were surveyed for birds, with a minimum of one survey location in each habitat type. As of June 2001, 37 locations have been surveyed for birds, in 19 large area habitat types, and two small area habitat types.

1 The Bird survey carried out by Wahyu Raharjaningtrah of Yayasan Pribumi Alam Lestari and Christian Mamengko from BirdLife International Indonesia Program, together with a team of local assistants, is still in the process of being analysed. The following results are taken from the preliminary analysis; more complete results will be presented in future scientific papers. This information should not be cited without prior permission from Wahyu Raharjaningtrah, Christian Mamengko or TNC.

2 Habitat type for the purpose of these surveys is a combination of vegetation type determined from the work of Jim Jarvie and Martin Hardiono; currently being updated by Martin Hardiono and Chuck Cannon. Landsystem taken from the RePProt data. At the time of the surveys, April 2000 to April 2001, TNC had classified 24 habitat types, each totaling over 600 ha in the Park.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 93

Survey Rainfall range (mm per Site Location name Vegetation Type Altitude range (m) Land system year) Dongi-dongi Ddongi Lower Montane 1030-1530 TWI, DLU 1500-2500 Dodolo Dodolo Montane 1490-1590 BBR 1500-2500 Gimpu Gimpu Lower Montane 790-1040 BPD >2500 Hanggira 1 Hanggira1 Cloud forest 1925-2145 TWI 2000-2500 Hanggira 2 Hanggira2 Montane 1980-2130 TWI 2000-2500 Kadidia 2 Kadidia2 Lower Montane 730-940 PDH, TWI 2000-2500 Kamarora Kamarora Lowland 680-880 TWI, KTT 2000-2500 Kanawu 1 Kanawu1 Swamp 995-1000 DLU 2000-2500 Kanawu 2 Kanawu2 Lower Montane 1030-1080 PDH 2000-2500 Kanawu 3 Kanawu3 Lower Montane 1080-1260 PDH 2000-2500 Kanawu 4 Kanawu4 Upper Montane 1330-1635 PDH 2000-2500 Lempe 1 Lempe1 Cloud forest 2080-2260 TWI 1500-2500 Lempe 2 Lempe2 Cloud forest 1475-1640 TWI 2000-2500 Lindu 1 Lindu1 Mixed Garden 1005-1195 TWI 1500-2000 Lindu 2 Lindu2 Lower Montane 945-1090 TWI, DLU 1500-2000 Lindu 3 Lindu3 Marsh 985-1000 DLU 2000-2500 Lindu4 Lindu4 Swamp 985-1000 DLU 2000-2500 Nokilalaki 1 Nlalaki1 Upper Montane 1640-1945 TWI 2000-2500 Nokilalaki 2 Nlalaki2 Lower Montane 955-1430 TWI 2000-2500 Nokilalaki 3 Nlalaki3 Cloud forest 1820-2355 TWI 2000-2500 Nokilalaki 4 Nlalaki4 Lower Montane 765-1260 TWI, KTT 2000-2500 O'operese Perese Lower Montane 485-735 TWI 2000-2500 Pointoa Pointoa Upper Montane 1640-2010 TWI 1500-2500 Rorekatimbu 1 Rkatimbu1 Upper Montane 1990-2140 TWI 2000-2500 Rorekatimbu 2 Rkatimbu2 Cloud forest 2150-2525 BPD, TWI 2000-2500 Rorekatimbu 3 Rkatimbu3 Montane 1295-1820 TWI 2000-2500 Rompo Rompo Lower Montane - Moist 1160-1200 BBR 2000-2500 Sibalaya 1 Sibalaya1 Monsoon 255-620 TWI 1000-1500 Sibalaya 2 Sibalaya2 Lowland 275-595 TWI 1000-1500 Sigimpu Sigimpu Savannah 180-345 TWI, PLU 1500-2000 Tababuru 1 Tababuru1 Lower Montane 895-1110 BBR 1500-2000 Tababuru 2 Tababuru2 Lower Montane 1105-1460 BBR, TWI 1500-2000 Uwebiro 1 Uwebiro1 Montane 1180-1430 BBR 1500-2000 Uwebiro 2 Uwebiro2 Montane 1195-1455 BBR 1500-2000 Watumaeta Watumaeta Lower Montane 1160-1205 KTT, TWI 2000-2500 Wuasa 1 Wuasa1 Lower Montane 1200-1495 BBR, KTT 2000-2500 Wuasa 2 Wuasa2 Montane 1370-1512 BBR 2000-2500

Table 9.2 Bird survey locations

9.4.2 Survey Approach

At each of 37 locations, 3 survey methods were used: a) Variable Circle Plots, (VCP). Ten plots were located every 150m along a transect, with two transects per survey location. Each transect was placed randomly within a single habitat type and, where possible, running across the altitudinal gradient. Over a period of four days, each transect line was censused four times; twice from 7am to 11am and twice from 3pm to 6pm, and from different directions. For example, a transect from A to B was walked one morning from A to B, and the in the afternoon, from B to A. The following morning, the same transect was walked from B to A, and in the afternoon, from A to B. Each time a transect was walked, the observer surveyed each VCP for 10 minutes. During this 10 minute period, every bird that was heard or seen was noted, recording data on species, distance from observer and number of individuals of that species. For each location, a total of 20 points were survey four times each, giving a total of 80 VCPs per location. Previous studies in tropical forests Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 94

(Bibby et al. 1999) have shown that at least 50 VCPs per location are required to give a representative sample of the birds in that area. b) Transects. In order to record cryptic, skulking birds that are usually only observed when flushed from cover (and therefore at risk of being under-represented in the VCPs), data were also collected along the transect lines. Transects between the VCP’s were walked at a slow pace, covering the 150m in about 10 minutes. During this time all birds observed or heard were noted, along with the number of individuals and the perpendicular distance from the line to the individual or flock. c) Mist nets. In order to assist in the identification of some species, and record species that might not be encountered on the transects and VCPs, nets were set up at each location. Eight nets (each net 2.5 m x 12 m) were set for 3 days in each location, giving at total of 24 net days and 720m of net per location.

Each of the VCPs were geolocated using Garmin 12 GPS units, and the altitude of the plot recorded using an altimeter.

9.4.2 Analysis Method

The results of the survey were entered into a Microsoft Access database, linked to a Arcview 3.2 geographical information system. Data from this database were selected for analysis. Diversity indices were calculated using Ecological Methodology computer package. Cluster analysis, and the production of dendrograms of similarity were calculated using NTSYSpc 2.10p.

To investigate whether species do, or do not, form discrete clusters associated with different variables, a DICE co-efficient was used in the calculation of similarity; dendrograms were clustered using UPGMA.

Three diversity indices were calculated; Simpsons Index (D), Shannon’s Index (H) and Fisher’s a. The Simpsons and Shannon’s indices are good for abundant and very abundant species, the Fisher’s a is a better index for rare species as it does not change greatly with small changes in abundance or richness. Looking at all three indices will overcome any problems of small uneven data sets.

9.4.4 Observations1

Summary: (To June 2001) Total number of locations surveyed: 37 Total number of transects surveyed: 74 Total number of points surveyed: 740 Total number of VCPs: 2960 Total number of mist net days: 888

Survey method Total bird Total No. of Total No. of encounters individuals species recorded VCP 20,0342 30,685 152 Transect 13,019 21,276 151 Sub totals Birds observed 33,361 51,961 165 Mist Net 685 61

Table 9.3 Number of birds recorded in survey.

Bird observations have been analysed to investigate diversity and species clustering for four main variables; survey location, habitat type, vegetation type and altitude.

1 To date (June 2001), the following analysis of the data has been completed. Later, finer, analysis of the bird observation data will be carried out, including; looking for clusters of species that are always found together and could be used as indicators of forest health; predicted densities of various key bird species based on the transect data, and analysis of the mist net data. This data will be presented in other documents and papers. Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 95 Ddongi Kanawu2 Kanawu4 Kanawu3 Dodolo Uwebiro1 Uwebiro2 Wuasa1 Wuasa2 Lempe2 Pointoa Rompo Tababuru1 Tababuru2 Gimpu Perese Kamarora Watumaeta Kanawu1 Lindu1 Lindu2 Lindu4 Lindu3 Kadidia2 Nlalaki2 Nlalaki4 Sigimpu Sibalaya2 Hanggira1 Hanggira2 Lempe1 Rkatimbu2 Rkatimbu1 Rkatimbu3 Nlalaki1 Nlalaki3 Sibalaya1 1.00 0.75 0.50 Coefficient 0.25 0.00 Figure 9.1 Dendrogram of similarity bird observed 9.1 Dendrogram species (presence/absence) Figure by location. Hanggira1

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 96

Standard Fisher's error of Location No. spp No. individuals Simpson's Shannons' alpha Fishers S N D H a SEa Ddongi 61 531 0.967 5.266 17.79 1.47 Dodolo 58 1027 0.962 5.047 13.31 0.91 Gimpu 58 1311 0.952 4.769 12.42 0.80 Hanggira1 46 951 0.958 4.876 10.57 0.77 Hanggira2 38 713 0.946 4.525 8.57 0.71 Kadidia2 47 750 0.937 4.453 11.12 0.86 Kamarora 62 1024 0.958 4.942 14.52 0.97 Kanawu1 76 1627 0.965 5.208 18.08 1.01 Kanawu2 65 1612 0.962 5.149 13.59 0.81 Kanawu3 60 1245 0.961 5.053 13.84 0.88 Kanawu4 59 1131 0.964 5.129 13.23 0.88 Lempe1 33 735 0.947 4.498 7.10 0.61 Lempe2 58 1375 0.96 4.986 12.27 0.78 Lindu1 52 679 0.946 4.704 13.11 1.02 Lindu2 55 728 0.958 4.928 13.81 1.04 Lindu3 76 1176 0.967 5.382 18.12 1.12 Lindu4 58 963 0.955 4.846 13.56 0.94 Nlalaki1 32 252 0.912 4.037 9.71 1.15 Nlalaki2 46 323 0.955 4.818 14.66 1.52 Nlalaki3 39 278 0.932 4.434 12.35 1.38 Nlalaki4 46 395 0.958 4.847 13.48 1.29 Perese 55 877 0.948 4.758 13.02 0.94 Pointoa 57 1016 0.956 4.977 13.05 0.90 Rkatimbu1 42 618 0.949 4.616 10.19 0.86 Rkatimbu2 37 458 0.923 4.256 9.49 0.89 Rkatimbu3 50 610 0.951 4.76 12.89 1.05 Rompo 69 1083 0.965 5.186 16.41 1.06 Sibalaya1 69 908 0.966 5.263 17.35 1.17 Sibalaya2 40 405 0.913 4.164 11.01 1.06 Sigimpu 56 1611 0.959 4.914 11.27 0.71 Tababuru1 73 769 0.967 5.337 19.81 1.39 Tababuru2 70 765 0.971 5.444 18.75 1.33 Uwebiro1 60 954 0.964 5.158 14.21 0.98 Uwebiro2 62 964 0.965 5.224 14.78 1.01 Watumaeta 65 1113 0.956 4.982 15.06 0.98 Wuasa1 57 1026 0.958 5.006 13.01 0.89 Wuasa2 56 765 0.959 4.958 13.91 1.03

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I

97

Wuasa2

Wuasa1

Watumaeta

Uwebiro2

Uwebiro1

Tababuru2

Tababuru1

Sigimpu

Sibalaya2

Sibalaya1

Rompo

Rkatimbu3

Rkatimbu2

Rkatimbu1

Pointoa

Perese

Nlalaki4

Nlalaki3

Nlalaki2

Nlalaki1

location

Lindu4

Lindu3

Lindu2

Lindu1

Lempe2

Lempe1

Kanawu4

Kanawu3

Kanawu2

Kanawu1

Kamarora

Kadidia2

Hanggira2

Hanggira1

Gimpu

Dodolo Ddongi

5 0

25 20 15 10 Fisher's alpha Fisher's Figure 9.2 Plot of Bird Diversity (Fisher’s a) at survey locations (ordered alphabetically) Figure 9.2 Plot of Bird Diversity (Fisher’s Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 98

Cloud

Montane

Upp Montane

Low Montane

Low M Moist

Lowland

Swamp

Marsh

Mixed Garden

Monsoon

Savannah

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.3 Dendrogram of similarity of total bird species (presence/absence) observed by vegetation type

25

20

15

10 Fisher alpha

5

0 Savannah M onsoon Lowland Mixed Marsh Swamp Lower Lower Montane Upper Cloud Forest Garden Forest Montane Montane Montane Forest Moist For e s t type

Figure 9.4 : Plot of total Bird Diversity by vegetation type (Fisher’s a)

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 99

CloudBPD

CloudTWI

MontaneBBR

UpMontTWI

MontaneTWI

UpMontPDH

LowerMMoistBBR

LowerMontBPD

LowlandTWI

LowerMontKTT

LowerMontBBR

LowerMontTWI

LowerMontPDH

SwampDLU

LowerMontDLU

LowlandKTT

MarshDLU

MixedGTWI

MonsoonTWI

SavannahPLU

SavannahTWI

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.5 : Dendrogram of similarity of total bird species (presence/absence) observed by habitat type

<300

1200-1500

1500-1800

1800-2100

1200-1500 2100-2500

300-600

600-900

900-1200

>2500

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.6 : Dendrogram of similarity of total bird species (presence/absence) observed by altitude (meters)

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 100

25

20

15

10 Fisher alpha

5

0 <300 300-600 600-900 900-1200 1200-1500 1500-1800 1800-2100 2100-2500 >2500 Altitude (m)

Figure 9.7 : Plot of total Bird Diversity by altitude (Fisher’s a)

140 100

90 120 80

100 70

60 80

50

60 % Endemic Number spp 40

30 40

20 20 10

0 0 Savannah Monsoon Lowland Marsh Mixed Swamp Lower Lower Montane Upper Cloud Forest Forest Garden Forest Montane Montane Montane Moist Forest type

# Endemic spp recorded total # spp recorded % spp that are endemic

Figure 9.8 : Species richness of birds observed and the % of endemic species encountered in different vegetation types

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 101

Cloud

LowerMont

Montane

UpMont

LMontMoist

LMontMoist Lowland

Swamp

Marsh

MixGarden

Monsoon

Savannah

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.9 : Dendrogram of similarity of total endemic bird species (presence/absence) observed by vegetation type

160 100

90 140 80 120 70 100 60

80 50

number spp 40 % endemics 60 30 40 20

20 10

0 0 <300 300-600 600-900 900-1200 1200-1500 1500-1800 1800-2100 2100-2500 >2500 Altitude (m)

# Endemic spp recorded total # spp recorded % spp that are endemic

Figure 9.10 : Species richness of birds observed and the % of endemic species encountered at different elevations

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 102

Lforest

Sforest

LMForest

Montane

UMForest

Savannah Cforest

LMMoist

Monsoon

Savannah

Marsh

Mgarden

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.11: Dendrogram of similarity of total frugivorous bird species (presence/absence) observed by vegetation type

Lforest

Monsoon

Mgarden

LMForest

Sforest

Savannah Montane

UMForest

Cforest

LMMoist

Marsh

Savannah

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.12: Dendrogram of similarity of total cryptic bird species (presence/absence) observed by vegetation type

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 103

2

1.5

1 Fisher's alpha

0.5

0 Lowland Monsoon Mixed Savannah Lower Lower Marsh Swamp M ontane Upper Cloud Forest Garden Montane Montane Forest Montane Forest Moist Vegetation types

Figure 9.13 : Plot of total cryptic bird species diversity by vegetation type (Fisher’s a)

9.4.5 Discussion

Biological interpretations are discussed between the total bird species numbers and locations, vegetation, habitat and altitude. Further, associations are drawn between the proportion of the bird assemblage that is endemic and both vegetation type and altitude. Implications of this data for management and zonation of the Park are discussed.

" Discussion of bird diversity related to Survey Location

The first analysis performed was the cluster analysis (figure 9.1) of the basic survey unit, the location. Each of these 37 locations was surveyed using the same methodology. Any patterns that were identified at this stage, were investigated in greater detail during further studies.

The first branch of the dendrogram (figure 9.1) occurs at a coefficient of about 0.5. This means that there is a great deal of species overlap across the locations; there are many bird species that are found in all the locations, and therefore throughout the Park. This is to be expected as some generalist species were observed at all sites. This first branch marks a distinction between two major groups of locations. If cross-referenced with table 9.2, a possible explanation for this pattern may be found. The bottom cluster of Hanggira 1 and 2, Lempe 1, Rorekatimbu 1 and 2, and Nokilalaki 1 and 3, are all high altitude sites in either cloud or upper montane forest. The top, main group comprise relatively low sites. One other conclusion that can be drawn from this bottom cluster, is that there is no obvious difference between the cloud forest sites in the north of the Park, and those in the south; they cluster at between 0.6 and 0.7 and are more similar to each other than they are to any other sites. On the other hand, with the exception of Hanggira, they are not clustering tightly; each location is, in itself, fairly unique.

This can be said for the diagram as a whole. Most of the locations do not cluster with other sites above a coefficient of 0.75, and so each of the 37 locations has a relatively unique assemblage of bird species. This shows that the diversity in the Park is high, with great variation across many variables.

Some other clusters of note in figure 9.1: ! The distinct separation of Nokilalaki 1 and 3, which are not only very dissimilar from the rest of the sites, but also dissimilar from each other. Few birds were recorded in these locations (table 9.4), and diversity is low. This will have affected the clustering. This may be due to several reasons: this

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 104

was the first area sampled, and so could be an artifact of the relatively inexperienced team. However, the researchers also noted that this was a ‘dead area’, which contained few birds; it is close to many villages and is frequently disturbed by farming, rattan collecting and hikers; and this area may well be depaubrperate. Further analysis, looking at specific groups known to be susceptible to disturbance, and surveying these locations a second time, would help clarify to these possibilities. ! Sibalaya 1 and 2, and Sigimpu, are all located in low altitude, dry, monsoon forest. They appear as a distinct cluster, though again they are all quite dissimilar to each other. ! Lindu 1 to 4 form a cluster. All of these sites were in the Lake Lindu basin, and within several hundred meters of the lake shore. ! Uwebiro 1 & 2, and Wuasa 1 & 2. These locations were in similar vegetation types and land system, but they were also all close to small rivers (around 20 m from a river). Both these factors could have resulted in this cluster, which has a coefficient of over 0.75, showing a high degree of overlap between these locations.

It can be seen, therefore, that although there is not a great deal of clustering and, most sites can be considered as reasonably unique, some of the patterns can be explained by other biotic or geographic variables. These variables are discussed below.

Diversity of birds across these locations is high (table 9.4) and there is little obvious pattern or variation in diversity (figure 9.2). Each location is different but each has high diversity. This shows that the all areas of the Park have a diverse and variable bird assemblage.

" Discussion of bird diversity related to Vegetation type.

An obvious variable that may affect the distribution of birds is vegetation type (for a description of the vegetation types found in the Park, see section 7). Different vegetation types have different assemblages of plant species, variation in structural diversity and canopy height. Some bird species are found only in very specific vegetation types, such as the Geomalia (Geomalia heinrichi) which is found only in cloud forest.

The dendrogram for vegetation (figure 9.3) shows that there is some grouping of bird species by vegetation type, though all link at around 0.55 indicating a degree of shared species across all vegetation types. Most clusters, however, form at coefficients below 0.75 indicating that each vegetation type has a fairly unique assemblage of species. Some other patterns do emerge:

! High altitude, cloud, montane and upper montane forest form a tight cluster together at a coefficient of about 0.76, showing that they share some unique species. They are, on the other hand, equally dissimilar, implying that each type is still distinct. ! There is some degree of clustering that separates cloud and montane forest types from Lower elevation types, implying discrete assemblages of birds in lowland and montane forests. ! There is a distinct separation of monsoon and savannah from the rest of the vegetation types. These forest types, restricted to the northern end of the Park at low altitude, and close to an area of high human population density and thus at high risk of disturbance, have a bird assemblage that is very different from that in the rest of the Park.

Diversity is uniformly high across vegetation types (figure 9.4). Diversity is generally about the same level across types, but as indicated above, each type appears to have a fairly unique assemblage of species. This implies that there must be some replacement of species in different vegetation types. This ‘ecological sorting’ has been observed elsewhere, such as on Mt Kinabalu in northern Borneo (MacKinnon et al 1996), and is predicted to occur in Sulawesi (Coates and Bishop 1997). This has been supported by this current survey. For example, Hair Crested Drongo (Dicrurus hottentottus) and Black faced White-eye (Zosterops atrifroms) in the lowlands, tend to be replaced by Sulawesi Drongo (Dicrurus montanus) and Mountain White-eye (Zosterops montanus) respectively, in montane and cloud forests (appendix III). Further analysis that looks at the abundance of various species in different vegetation types, and more accurate knowledge of the vegetation at each survey location, should show that this is also the case with many other species.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 105

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 106

Most vegetation types are similarly diverse but savannah, mixed gardens and cloud forest have reduced diversity. It is likely that diversity is low in mixed gardens due to the high levels of disturbance, particularly to the understory, that affects ground-dwelling insectivorous species. Such species may also be affected by the widespread use of insecticides to control pests in the forest gardens. Future analysis will investigate this in order to determine whether the diversity of insectivores is indeed lower in mixed gardens than in natural forest. Cloud forest is low in diversity, following the typical pattern for tropical forest, in which species richness declines with increasing altitude (see below). However, as discussed below, these cloud forest are especially rich in endemic bird species, making them a priority area for conserving Sulawesi’s endemic birds.

" Discussion of bird diversity related to habitat.

In order to assess whether habitat type is a valid distinction when surveying bird diversity, the dendrogram for habitat type (figure 9.5) was compared to that based on vegetation alone. If similar vegetation types are clustering, regardless of land system, then vegetation alone can be judged to be the more important variable associated with bird distribution in the Park.

The dendrogram for habitat type shows some interesting patterns:

! Cloud forest on BPD appears as a very different bird assemblage from other habitats. This is a curious result, and needs further investigation. This habitat type was surveyed at Rorekatimbu 2, with 78 VCPs completed in the habitat. It is therefore unlikely to result from a small sample size. Additionally, in the dendrogram for location (figure 9.1) Rorekatimbu 2 clusters tightly with Hanggira 1 & 2 and Lempe 1, all of which are habitat type “cloud forest on TWI”. ! Other than the one anomaly of cloud forest on BPD, the dendrogram suggests that the bird assemblage in a vegetation type is not subdivided by its underlying physiology. Although each habitat type is fairly unique, this has been seen in all other variables, and is possibly due to the high diversity of the Park. Vegetation types are clustering together; all high altitude vegetation types are more similar to each other than to other types (see figure 9.3). ! Some habitat types, notably “Lower Montane on DLU” and “Lowland on KTT” do appear to stand alone, showing a different pattern to that predicted based on vegetation alone. Investigation of the original data, however, shows that this may simply be an artifact of low sampling in these habitats (40 and 16 VCPs respectively).

Thus, preliminary analysis shows, that when attempting to predict bird assemblages in the Park, habitat type may not be a variable that contributes greatly to the information as compared to using vegetation data alone. Future analysis of this data set, looking at specific guilds of birds, will provide more information on this issue.

" Discussion of bird diversity related to altitude.

As has already been shown, vegetation is an important variable affecting bird distribution. One of the main factors determining vegetation type, is altitude. It is therefore reasonable to predict that altitude will also have a strong influence on bird distribution. This is also the case with other biotic and abiotic factors; insect diversity, for example, decreases with altitude and there are obvious climactic changes. Birds must adapt to cope with a decreasing mean temperature, a greater daily variation in temperature, and an increased frequency of fog.

The results of the altitudinal analysis (figure 9.6) show several patterns:

! Bird populations below 300m, and above 2500m are very different. This is most probably the result of low sampling effort at those altitudes. In the absence of additional data from these elevations, the populations will be excluded from further analysis. ! Each altitudinal interval is, as with all the other variables, reasonably unique. There is, however, some tight clustering at low (300 to 900m) elevations - corresponding to lowland forest, mid elevations (1200 to 1800m) - corresponding to montane forests, and high elevations (over 1800m) corresponding to cloud forest. Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 107

! This analysis therefore provides evidence to support the theory that vegetation type is one of the most important variables affecting bird diversity and distribution.

A clear trend is revealed in which diversity is seen to decrease with altitude (figure 9.7); mid elevations show slightly higher diversities than lower elevations. This may be an artifact caused by unequal sampling effort (the sampling was stratified across habitat types, of which there are many at mid elevations), but may also represent a genuine pattern. Bird diversity in the tropics is typically highest in lowland forests, and decreases with altitude (Coates and Bishop 1997, MacKinnon et al 1996, MacKinnon and Phillips 1993). The relatively low diversity in the lowland forests surveyed in Lore Lindu could be due to the high levels of disturbance in these areas. All areas of lowland forest within the Park are located close to its borders. (map 9.1). The majority is situated in close proximity to villages, where it is used for mixed gardens or has, in the past, been used for swidden agriculture. Such activities alter the structure and ecology of the forest, and hence have an impact on the associated avifauna. Further survey work in undisturbed lowland forest is needed in order to investigate this theory.

" Discussion of endemic bird diversity.

Figures 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 show the results of the investigation into the distribution of endemic birds within the Park. Figure 9.9, the dendrogram of similarity of endemic birds in different vegetation types, shows three distinct clusters. The top one, clustering at a coefficient of around 0.8 shows there to be a distinct assemblage of high altitude endemics. The other clusters do not form at such high coefficients but again show that the dryer monsoon areas have a unique fauna. Another interesting result that the endemic bird fauna of moist lower montane forest is more similar to lowland forests than to other lower montane forests.

Figures 9.8 and 9.10 clearly show a similar trend, namely, that the percentage of endemic bird species encountered increases with increasing altitude. This is the converse of bird diversity, which tended to decrease with altitude and associated vegetation type. The rate of endemism is highest in cloud forest, where almost 70% of the bird species recorded are endemic to Sulawesi. Appendix III shows that many of these endemic species are found only at high altitudes. This is common pattern in tropical forests, for example, at least 28 of Borneo’s 37 endemic bird species are confined to mountains (MacKinnon et al 1996). This reinforces the importance of the high mountains of Lore Lindu NP for the conservation of Sulawesi’s unique avifauna.

" Discussion of bird guilds

Guilds of birds are groups of birds with similar ecologies. These may be feeding guilds, such as all the birds that eat insects (insectivores) or also micro habitat guilds, such as all the birds that live in the upper canopy. Two guilds were investigated; fruit eating birds (frugivores) are important seed dispersers and therefore vital to the maintenance of the entire forest ecosystem, and cryptic ground dwelling species that have been shown elsewhere (Mackinnon et al 1996) to be very susceptible to disturbance.

Frugivores Figure 9.11 show the dendrogram of similarity for frugivorous birds in different vegetation types. In addition to the usual clustering linked to altitude there are two main clusters. These seem to be clustered relating to disturbance, and in particular the presence or absence of large canopy trees. The bottom cluster of monsoon, savannah, marsh and mixed garden were all vegetation types that lacked large trees. Bird species that depend on these trees are absent from the bird fauna in these areas. An interesting thing to note is that most of the lowland sites surveyed were also disturbed to some extent and mixed with forest gardens. The similarity analysis however shows that these areas are still similar to natural forests. This is thought to be because although the lowland areas were being used for forest gardens a large number to tall canopy trees were maintained and thus the fugivorous birds that depend on these trees still occur.

Cryptic ground dwelling species Figure 9.12, the dendrogram of similarity of cryptic species with vegetation type shows two major divisions. Savannah is very different from all other types, and then there is another division between Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 108

Lowland, monsoon forest and mixed garden and the remaining vegetation types. This distinction appears to be due to disturbance. Figure 9.13 show the Fisher’s alpha diversity for the different vegetation types. Savannah, lowland, monsoon forest and mixed garden all have much lower diversity of cryptic species than the other vegetation types. These vegetation types were all considered by the survey teams to have moderate to high levels of disturbance, especially to the understory. It appears that such disturbance has a big impact on the understory bird fauna.

9.4.6 Conclusions

Results show that in the Park:

! Bird diversity is high across all vegetation and habitat types; ! each vegetation type has a fairly unique assemblage of bird species; ! there is ecological sorting, with some species being replaced by others in a similar niche in different vegetation types/ at different altitudes; ! the monsoon forests in the north of the Park have a unique assemblage of birds, i.e., diverse in species but with a low level of Sulawesi endemics; ! lowland forests have relatively low bird diversity, which may be due to high levels of anthropogenic disturbance; ! lower montane forests have the most diverse avifauna; ! high altitude forests (montane, upper Montane and cloud forests) have a distinct assemblage of bird species that are high in endemic species. and ! Disturbance affects different birds in different ways. Understory disturbance has a big impact on cryptic, ground-dwelling, insectivorous birds. Some frugivorous birds can live in disturbed areas as long as large canopy trees exist.

9.5 Notable bird species

9.5.1 Maleo (Macocephalon maleo)

One of Sulawesi’s most distinctive birds, the Maleo was described by Alfred Russell Wallace: “The appearance of the bird … is very handsome. The glossy black and rosy white of the plumage, the helmeted head and elevated tail, like that of the common fowl, give a striking character, which their stately and somewhat sedate walk renders still more remarkable” (Wallace 1869).

As Wallace also noted, this bird, endemic to Sulawesi and the only representative of its genus, has a quite unusual nesting behavior. Like other species in the family Megapodiidae (there are about 20 species distributed from Australia to the Philippines and Polynesia, including one other species in Sulawesi), Maleo do not build nests, incubate their eggs or care for their young. Instead, they rely on solar or geothermal heat to incubate eggs that are buried in the ground. This dependence on geothermal heat, or exposed areas of sand, means that Maleo nest at regular sites, with many pairs of birds laying eggs in the same location (historically up to 100). These nesting sites have been found near hot springs, along river banks and at coastal beaches. The eggs are then abandoned. Later, the newly hatched chicks must dig themselves free of the earth, and are immediately independent. (Coates and Bishop 1992, Butchart and Baker 2000).

The concentration of eggs in one location, the large size of the eggs (nearly five times heavier than a normal chicken egg) and high nutritional value of the eggs means that they have long been collected for human consumption. Harvesting of eggs continues today, and in most places, is totally unregulated. This over-harvesting, together with habitat destruction, are major threats to the survival of the Maleo bird.

Maleo are distributed throughout northern, central, eastern and south-eastern regions of Sulawesi, and are present wherever there are suitable nesting grounds and forest cover. A total of 131 nesting sites are reported. The total world population of Maleo is currently estimated at 4000 - 7000 breeding pairs. Current data exists for only 119 sites out of the total number identified; of these, 42 have been abandoned and are no longer used by Maleo. This is especially the case for coastal sites which

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 109

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 110 humans can access more easily. The site in northeast Sulawesi, where Wallace first sighted and collected the birds, was on a black sand beach that was abandoned long ago by the Maleo.

9.5.1.1 Maleo in Lore Lindu National Park1

Lore Lindu NP has been described as a priority site for the conservation of Maleo (Butchart and Baker 2000). Nine nesting sites have been identified in the Park, all of which are still in use. The Park, therefore contains 11% of the world’s known Maleo nesting sites.

It has also been estimated that up to 300 breeding pairs of Maleo could be making use of these sites. The sites were surveyed in 1998 as part of a wider survey of Maleo sites in Central Sulawesi (Butchart and Baker 2000). They were re-surveyed in May 2001 to provide up-to-date information, and to try and assess population trends. (Jambata 2001)

Through a combination of interviews with key informants in villages close to the nesting sites, coupled with visits to the field, the status of each nesting site, and trends in population numbers have been identified. For a more complete description of the methodology, refer to Butchart and Baker (1998).

9.5.1.2 Conclusions

These results represent mixed news. Although they are based on only two surveys, made at different times of the year, therefore making predictions of trends difficult, it does appear that, on the whole, the status of Maleo in the Park is stable. There was a marked decrease in population from the 1970’s through to the late 1990’s but since then the populations appear to have remained stable. Some sites have seen an increase in numbers, and relatively low levels of disturbance, whilst others are much the same in 2001 as they were in 1998. Three sites are a cause for concern: Kamarora, Kare Tambe and Hulu Rawa. These are heavily disturbed, and if this continues, are likely to be abandoned by Maleo in the next few years.

9.6 Mammals (mammalia)

As with the avifauna, the mammals of Sulawesi are highly unusual. The long period of isolation from other major land masses, and their location in the Wallacea bioregion, have resulted in a unique fauna that is not particularly rich in species, but has a very high level of endemism.

Mainland Sulawesi supports only 127 species of mammals (appendix IV), in contrast to 222 on Borneo and 183 on Java (MacKinnon et al 1996). A total of 60% of these 127 species, however, are endemic to Sulawesi, rising to 98% if bats are not included. There are 13 endemic genera, of which 9 are rodents. The mammals are mainly Asian in origin. There are no native cats, dogs, cervids (Cervus timorensis is believed to have been introduced), tree shrews or mongooses. Sulawesi does, however, have two native marsupials, the Bear cuscus (Ailurops ursinus) and Dwarf Sulawesi cuscus (Stigocusus celebensis), both of which were previously thought to be in the genus Phalanger but now both reclassified into their own monospecific genera (Corbett and Hill 1992). These Sulawesi cuscus represent the furthest north westerly spread of marsupials in Australasia and Indomalaya.

The most famous of Sulawesi’s mammals are probably it’s unique large mammals, the Anoa (Bubalus spp.), Babirusa (Babyrousa babirusa) and 7 species of “black” macaques (Macaca spp). See below for more information on these animals.

9.6.1 Mammals of Lore Lindu NP

Comprehensive knowledge of the mammals in the Park is still lacking. The presence or absence of the large, well-known mammals has been documented (see below), with Anoa (Bubalus spp.), Babirusa

1 This information should not be cited without the prior permission of Yayasan Jambata and TNC.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 111

(Babyrousa babirusa), the Tonkean macaque (Macaca tonkeana), two species of tarsier (Tarsius spp.), and both species of marsupials being observed in the Park. Less is known about the smaller mammals in the Park, though current surveys are producing more information about rats and frugivorous bats. Little is known about other groups, such as squirrels, shrews and insectivorous bats.. Despite these gaps in knowledge, 77 species have definitively been recorded in the Park (including 47 Sulawesi endemics), and it is anticipated that the presence of another 36 will be confirmed. The Park, therefore, is home to 89% of Sulawesi’s mammal species. If bats are excluded from this figure, 48 species of mammal have been recorded, of which 85% are Sulawesi endemics.

It is clear that the Park is a vitally import area for the conservation of Sulawesi’s mammals. Not only is it home to the majority of the island’s mammal species, but its location, at the centre of the island, means that it acts as a bridge linking these forests, and their associated mammal populations, with many other areas on the island. Conservation of the Park is key to the conservation of Sulawesi’s remarkable mammals.

Two studies are have been carried out by TNC in order to further understand the diversity and distribution of mammals in the Park; one study covered bat and rat populations; the other is concentrated on the distributions of Anoa, Babirusa, Sulawesi warty pig and Tonkean Macaque.

9.7 Rat and Bat Survey1

9.7.1 Survey locations

In order to stratify the survey covering the entire Park, to ensure that it was representative of the whole range of altitudes, rainfall and vegetation types, it was decided that surveys should take place in each of the 24 major habitat types2 (see section 7.3 for further details), with a minimum of one survey location in each of habitat type. As of June 2001, 33 locations have been surveyed for small mammals, in 20 large area habitat types.

5 Field data for the small mammal survey, is still in the process of being collected (Ibnu Maryanto of The State Museum Zoology, Bogor; and Mohamed Yani together with a team of local assistants). The following results are taken from preliminary the analysis; more complete results will be presented in later drafts of this document and future scientific papers. This information should not be cited without prior permission from Ibnu Maryanto, Mohamed Yani and TNC. 6 Habitat type for the purpose of theses surveys is a combination of vegetation type determined from the work of Jim Jarvie and Martin Hardiono, and currently being updated by Martin Hardiono and Chuck Cannon, and Landsystem taken from the Repprot data. At the time of the surveys, April 2000 to April 2001, TNC had classified 24 habitat types each totaling over 600 ha in Lore Lindu National Park.

9.7.2 Survey Approach

At each of the 33 locations, the following methods were used:

! For trapping rats, a single transect, located at random, was laid out in each habitat type. Along this transect, 20 trap lines of 10 traps each were set, half being breakback traps and half being live traps. Two types of bait were used: baked coconut and salted fish, with equal proportions of each type. Each location therefore had:

· 50 breakback traps baited with coconut; · 50 breakback traps baited with salted fish; · 50 live traps baited with coconut; and · 50 live traps baited with salted fish.

! Both live and breakback traps were used in this survey as previous studies have proved that the different trap types have varying success rates in terms of capture. Each line was used for 4 days, resulting in 800 trap days per location.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 112

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 113

! Mist nets were set at each location in order to trap bats. 12m x 2.5m nets were set for four nights in each location, with a total of 20 mist net nights per location. ! For each rat or bat trapped, a field identification was made and standard measurements taken. ! Most live specimens were released after measurements had been taken, but sample specimens of each of the species of bat and rat that had been trapped were taken and sent for positive identification to State Zoology Museum at Cibenong. ! Each of the trap lines and mist nets were geolocated using Garmin 12 GPS units, and the altitude of the plot recorded using an altimeter.

9.7.3 Analysis Method

The results of the survey were entered into a Microsoft Access database linked to an Arcview 3.2 geographical information system. Diversity indices were calculated using an Ecological Methodology computer package, and cluster analysis; dendrograms of similarity were produced using calculations from NTSYSpc 2.10p.

Survey Vegetation Rainfall range (mm Site Location name Type Altitude range (m) Land system per year) Baku bakulu Bbakulu Degraded forest 850-1055 TWI 1500-2000 Dodolo Dodolo Montane 1500-1600 BBR 1500-2000 Hanggira 1 Hanggira1 Cloud Forest 212-2250 TWI 2000-2500 Hanggira 2 Hanggira2 Montane 1520-1755 TWI 2000-2500 Kadidia 1 Kadidia1 Lower Montane 665-820 TWI 2000-2500 Kadidia 2 Kadidia2 Lower Montane 730-865 PDH 2000-2500 Kamarora Kamarora Lowland 640-700 TWI, KTT 2000-2500 Kanawu 1 Kanawu1 Swamp Forest 995-1005 DLU 2000-2500 Kanawu 2 Kanawu2 Lower Montane 1040-1050 PDH 2000-2500 Kanawu 3 Kanawu3 Lower Montane 1070-1420 PDH 2000-2500 Kanawu 4 Kanawu4 Upper Montane 1655-1835 PDH 2000-2500 Lempe 1 Lempe1 Cloud Forest 2000-2120 TWI 1500-2500 Lempe 2 Lempe2 Cloud Forest 2000-2135 TWI 2000-2500 Lindu 1 Lindu1 Mixed Garden 910-1065 TWI, DLU 1500-2000 Lindu 2 Lindu2 Lower Montane 985-1170 TWI 1500-2000 Lindu 3 Lindu3 Marsh 984-990 DLU 2000-2500 Lindu4 Lindu4 Swamp Forest 990-1000 DLU 2000-2500 Nokilalaki 1 Nlalaki1 Upper Montane 1605-1914 TWI 2000-2500 Nokilalaki 2 Nlalaki2 Lower Montane 795-1420 TWI 2000-2500 Nokilalaki 3 Nlalaki3 Cloud Forest 1905-2290 TWI 2000-2500 Pointoa Pointoa Upper Montane 1810-2005 TWI 1500-2500 Rorekatimbu 2 Rkatimbu2 Upper Montane/Cloud 1990-2520 BBD, TWI 2000-2500 Rorekatimbu 3 Rkatimbu3 Montane 1695-1980 TWI 2000-2500 Rompo Rompo Upper Montane - moist 1195-1200 BBR 2000-2500 Sibalaya 1 Sibalaya1 Monsoon 345-620 TWI 1000-1500 Tababuru 1 Tababuru1 Lower Montane 1100-1190 BBR,TWI 1500-2000 Tababuru 2 Tababuru2 Lower Montane 890-1090 BBR 1500-2000 Uwebiro 1 Uwebiro1 Montane 1300-1320 BBR 1500-2000 Uwebiro 2 Uwebiro2 Montane 1195-1250 BBR 1500-2000 Watubose Watubose Lower Montane 815-965 BBG 1500-2000 Watumaeta Watumaeta Lower Montane 1185-1195 KTT 2000-2500 Wuasa 1 Wuasa1 Lower Montane 1230-1500 BBR 2000-2500 Wuasa 2 Wuasa2 Montane 1384-1515 BBR 2000-2500 Table 9.6 Small mammal survey locations.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 114

To investigate the extent to which species form discrete clusters with a dependency on different variables, a DICE co-efficient was used in the calculation of similarity; dendrograms were clustered using UPGMA.

Three diversity indices were calculated: Simpsons Index (D), Shannon’s Index (H) and Fisher’s a.

9.7.4 Observations

9.7.4.1 Rat Survey

In general very few rats were trapped in the course of the survey. The reason for this in not known, there could be limitation in the method or simply that rat densities are low in Lore Lindu. (see appendix VI)

A total of 271 ground mammals were collected from 26,400 trapnights in the Park. This indicates that approximately 97 of trap nights were required to capture, on average, a single small mammal. These figures were reasonably similar to the effort required to collect a single small mammal from another intensive trapping study of mammals in mountainous rainforest in Indonesia, viz at Gunung Ranaka (altitude 1000-2090m), Flores Island, where 117 trapnights were required (Kitchener and Yani 1998), but much higher than the 32 trapnights that were required in the Freeport Contract of work area in Irian Jaya (Kitchener et al. 1997).

The effort to capture mammals in other areas of South-East Asia was usually lower that in the Park. For example, Medway (1972) required, on average, 50 trapnights at Gunung Benom, West Malaysia (<300m –2,400m); Langham (1983) required 21 trapnights at Kedah Peak, Malaysia (150m-1000m); Heaney et al. (1989) 30 trap nights at Leyte island, Philippines (300m-950m) and 11 trap nights at Mount Guinsayawan (10m –1500m), Negros Island, Philippines. This may suggest that abundance of mammals is low in many Indonesian rainforests.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 115

Summary: Total number of trap-days (to May 2001): 26,400 Total number of individuals trapped: 271 Total number of species trapped: 26 Total number of endemic species trapped: 23

No. Fisher's Standard error Location spp No. individuals Simpson's Shannons' alpha of Fishers S N D H a SEa Bbakulu 2 3 0.667 0.918 Dodolo 3 4 0.833 1.5 4 1.665 Hanggira1 4 7 0.857 1.95 3.878 4.005 Hanggira2 1 1 Kadidia1 5 15 0.705 1.907 2.262 1.815 Kadidia2 6 15 0.829 2.333 3.706 4.025 Kamarora 5 10 0.844 2.171 3.978 21.223 Kanawu1 3 6 0.733 1.459 2.387 16.439 Kanawu2 3 5 0.8 1.522 3.166 2.728 Kanawu3 2 2 Kanawu4 3 5 0.7 1.371 3.166 2.728 Lempe1 5 9 0.806 2.059 4.63 5.342 Lempe2 7 7 Lindu1 2 6 0.332 0.65 Lindu2 3 3 3 1.442 Lindu3 6 10 0.889 2.446 6.332 3.858 Lindu4 6 9 0.917 2.503 7.876 2.698 Nlalaki1 5 6 0.933 2.252 6 2.039 Nlalaki2 8 10 0.933 2.846 10 2.633 Nlalaki3 6 31 0.794 2.31 2.216 0.756 Pointoa 1 1 Rkatimbu2 8 19 0.871 2.76 5.204 6.437 Rkatimbu3 3 3 1 1.585 Rompo 4 6 0.8 1.792 5.244 2.203 Sibalaya1 4 6 0.8 1.792 5.244 2.203 Tababuru1 5 12 0.667 1781 3.217 4.718 Tababuru2 4 7 0.81 1.842 3.878 4.005 Uwebiro1 Uwebiro2 4 5 0.9 1.922 5 1.862 Watubose 7 19 0.784 2.292 4.002 2.987 Watumaeta 5 8 0.893 2.25 5.703 3.005 Wuasa1 4 4 Wuasa2 5 8 0.893 2.25 5.703 3.005

Table 9.7: Diversity of rats captured at each location.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 116

Bbakulu Wuasa2 Do do lo Ha nggi ra1 Wat umaeta Wuasa1 Uwe bir o 2 Lempe1 Rkatimbu2 Lempe2 Lindu4 Lindu2 Tababuru2 Nl al aki 3 Ka didia1 Ka nawu1 Hanggira1 Lindu3 Ka didia2 Nl al aki 2 Wat ubose Kamarora Ka nawu3 Rkatimbu3 Ka nawu4 Ka nawu2 Tababuru1 Nl al aki 1 Rompo Pointoa Lindu1 Sibalaya1 Ha nggi ra2 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coeff icient

Figure 9.14 Dendrogram of similarity of locations based on rats trapped

Cloud Montane Low Montane Lowland Marsh Swamp Forest Low Mont Moist Upp Montane Degraded Monsoon Mixed Garden

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.15 Dendrogram on similarity of vegetation types based on rats trapped

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 117

CloudBPD LowerMMoistBB UpMontTWI CloudTWI LowerMontBBR LowerMontTWI LowerMontBBG LowerMontPDH LowlandKTT LowerMontKTT MarshDLU SwampDLU MontaneBBR MontaneTWI UpMontPDH DegradeTWI LowlandTWI MixedGTWI MonsoonTWI

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.16 Dendrogram of similarity of habitats based on rats trapped

>2400

1200-1500

2100-2400

1800-2100

1200-1500

1500-1800

600-900

900-1200

300-600

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coeff ic ient

Figure 9.17 Dendrogram of similarity of altitudes based on rats trapped

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 118

9.7.4.2 Bats

Summary: Total number of mistnet-nights (to May 2001) : 660 Total number of individuals trapped : 3118 Total number of species trapped : 22 Total number of endemic species trapped : 5

Standard Fisher's error of Location No. spp No. individuals Simpson's Shannons' alpha Fishers S N D H a SEa Bbakulu 9 193 0.636 2.001 2.145 0.348 Dodolo 6 80 0.527 1.46 1.502 0.343 Hanggira1 1 69 Hanggira2 4 44 0.253 0.774 1.069 0.317 Kadidia1 8 129 0.598 1.831 1.887 0.355 Kadidia2 6 73 0.72 2.083 1.548 0.363 Kamarora 10 251 0.667 2.224 2.083 0.317 Kanawu1 10 180 0.556 1.95 2.283 0.374 Kanawu2 8 128 0.762 2.397 1.892 0.356 Kanawu3 10 98 0.689 2.122 2.787 0.543 Kanawu4 3 98 0.041 0.164 0.585 0.155 Lempe1 2 20 0.1 0.286 Lempe2 1 11 Lindu1 8 203 0.638 1.85 1.662 0.282 Lindu2 5 37 0.635 1.639 1.558 0.48 Lindu3 7 53 0.697 1.989 2.16 0.556 Lindu4 6 64 0.693 1.926 1.621 0.396 Nlalaki1 3 126 0.032 0.133 0.552 0.14 Nlalaki2 7 116 0.408 1.28 1.638 0.327 Nlalaki3 1 81 Pointoa 4 149 0.066 0.263 0.756 0.169 Rkatimbu2 4 157 0.081 0.328 0.747 0.166 Rkatimbu3 2 165 0.082 0.253 Rompo 8 62 0.704 2.266 2.445 0.583 Sibalaya1 9 99 0.609 1.085 2.405 0.475 Tababuru1 4 8 0.821 1.906 3.183 18.983 Tababuru2 6 30 0.793 2.288 2.255 0.787 Uwebiro1 6 32 0.431 1.311 2.177 0.728 Uwebiro2 7 59 0.382 1.209 2.067 0.509 Watubose 10 73 0.716 2.238 3.135 0.686 Watumaeta 8 150 0.719 2.179 1.805 0.327 Wuasa1 5 30 0.582 1.538 1.713 0.585 Wuasa2 7 21 0.705 2.104 3.674 2.147

Table 9.8: Diversity of bats captured at each location

Few insectivorous bats were trapped. This is likely to be because of their ability to detect the nets. Fruit bats, on the other hand, do not echolocate and are unable to see the nets.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 119

Bbakulu Sibalaya1 Kamarora Kadidia2 Watumaeta Lindu1 Lindu4 Lindu3 Tababuru2 Kadidia1 Kanawu1 Kanawu2 Rompo Nlalaki2 Watubose Uwebiro1 Uwebiro2 Kanawu3 Dodolo Wuasa2 Hanggira2 Wuasa1 Lindu2 Pointoa Tababuru1 Nlalaki3 Rkatimbu2 Rkatimbu3 Hanggira1 Lempe2 Nlalaki1 Lempe1 Kanawu4 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.18: Dendrogram of similarity of locations based on bats trapped

Cloud

Upp Mont

Degraded

Monsoon

Lowland

Low Montan

Low M Mois

Montane

Swamp

Marsh

Mixed Garde

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.19: Dendrogram of similarity of vegetation types based on bats trapped

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 120

CloudBPD UpMontPDH CloudTWI MontaneTWI UpMontTWI DegradedTWI LowlandKTT LowlandTWI MonsoonTWI LowerMontKTT LowerMMoistBR LowMontTWI LowMontBBG MontaneBBR LowMontPDH SavannahDLU LowMontBBR MarshDLU MixedGardenDLU MixedGardedTWI

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Coefficient

Figure 9.20: Dendrogram of similarity of habitat types based on bats trapped

Figure 9.21 Dendrogram of similarity of altitude based on bats trapped

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 121

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

Shannons' H Diversity 1

0.5

0

Marsh Monsoon Montane

Mixed Garden Cloud Forest Lowland Forest Swamp Forest Lower Montane Upper Montane Degraded Lowland Lower Montane Moist Forest type

Rat Bat

Figure 9.21 : Plot of small mammal diversity (shannon’s) against vegetation type

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

Shannons' H diversity 1

0.5

0 300-600 600-900 900-1200 1200-1500 1500-1800 1800-2100 2100-2500 >2500 m above sea level

rats bats

Figure 9.22 : Plot of small mammal diversity against altitude.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 122

Box 9.1: New Species

In the course of the survey, several animals were trapped which did not match any of those described in field guides or systematic reviews. Specimens of the se individuals are currently being examined by the State Zoology Museum, Cibenong Details of them will be included in later drafts of this document.

Preliminary investigation reveals that at least two new species may have been discovered; a species of Rousettus bat, trapped on three occasions to the east of Lake Lindu, and a species of Thoopterus bat found in large numbers in cloud forest south of the Besoa enclave.

9.7.7 Discussion

The results for each variable, are discussed separately in the account below, covering both the rat and bat surveys.

" Discussion of small mammal diversity related to Survey location

The first analysis to be performed was the cluster analysis (Figures 9.14 & 9.18) of the basic survey unit, the location. Each of the 33 locations was surveyed using the same effort; the resulting dendrogram forms the basis from which further results can be interpreted. Any patterns revealed at this stage, were investigated in greater detail during further analyses.

The dendrogram from the rat data shows very low coefficients of similarity, implying that each of the locations had very different assemblages of species. This is probably an artifact caused by the low numbers of individuals and small number of species trapped. Conversely, the bat dendrogram shows higher coefficients, though there are few clusters with a coefficient of similarity above 0.8. The data indicates, therefore, that each location had a relatively unique assemblage of rats and bats. Any comparison of the two dendrograms is made difficult as a direct result of the large difference in the numbers of rats and bats trapped.

" Discussion of small mammal diversity related to vegetation type

Vegetation type is expected to have an influence on any animal community. With reference to rats and bats, differences in forest structure or availability of food trees are expected to have the largest influence on populations.

The dendrogram for rats (figure 9.15) is hard to interpret due to the low capture rate of animals during this survey. The coefficients of similarity are higher for the bat dendrogram, although only two links are above 0.8. Some patterns are revealed:

! most coefficients are low, indicating that each vegetation type has a relatively unique assemblage of bats and rats; ! mixed garden’ appears as a very discrete cluster, thus has a very unique assemblage. Appendix VI and figure 9.21 show that the rat diversity in mixed gardens is very low. This could be a result of the very disturbed understory in forest gardens, coupled with regular trapping around farms (aimed at discouraging their presence). For bats, the pattern is reversed; bat diversity is high in forest gardens, possibly because of the higher density of fruit trees found in these areas. The bat dendrogram (figure 9.19) shows that mixed garden clusters closely with marsh. This could be because both of these vegetation types were represented by only one netting location each, situated within close proximity of each other;

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 123

! degraded forest and monsoon forests cluster together for both rats and bats. For rats, they are very dissimilar to the rest of the vegetation types.. These two vegetation types, found only in the north of the Park, have a unique small mammal fauna; ! for bats, cloud and upper montane forests, are very different from all other types of forest. They are more similar to each other than the other types, but with a similarity coefficient of only 0.6, they are still very different from each other; ! montane forest and swamp forest clusters together with the bat data; the reason for this, is not known. For rats, the swamp and marsh are clustering together, both being flooded environments.

The diversity of bats across vegetation types is fairly similar, with the exception of upper montane and cloud forest. There are many species common to all the lower altitude forest types, with six species found in every type of forest other than upper montane and cloud forest (appendix V). These species may be generalist species that can live in a wide range of forests. This is supported by the fact that, in contrast to the rats, bat diversity is as high in forest gardens as it is in natural forest. It should be noted, however, that these generalist species are unsuited to high altitudes, where a very different bat fauna is observed. Rat diversity appears to be heavily influenced by disturbance; diversity is lowest in degraded forest and mixed garden. In contrast to the bats, montane and cloud forests had the highest diversity of rats, all of which were endemic species.

" Discussion of small mammal diversity related to habitat type

In order to determine whether habitat type is a variable that affects bat and rat distributions, the dendrograms produced can be compared with the vegetation dendrograms.

! the pattern of clustering, based on the bat data, (figure 9.20) is very similar to the vegetation tree (figure 9.19). Vegetation types are clustering together, regardless of landsystem. Bats therefore, donot seem to be affected by landsystems; ! for rats (figure 9.16), each habitat is very dissimilar from each of the others. This may, however, simply be a consequence of the low numbers. It can not be concluded, from these results, whether habitat type has an effect on rat distribution. Further collections need to be taken for this to be assessed properly.

" Discussion of small mammal diversity related to altitude

Altitude is likely to have an influence on the diversity of small mammals. This is supported by the survey results:

! there is a very discrete rat group below 600m, and another above 2400m. This is an artifact of very low sampling in this altitude range; ! for both rats and bats (figures 9.17 & 9.18) each altitudinal range is a discrete cluster; they do, however, also form two distinct groups at high (above 1500m) and low (below 1500m) altitudes

Rat diversity is relatively constant at all altitudes, (figure 9.22) (ignoring the highest and lowest categories as discussed above) but there are distinct high altitude and low altitude assemblages of species, implying that ecological sorting of the rats also occurs. Appendix VI shows this to be the case, with an area of overlap in lower montane forest where both low altitude species, such as Bunomys prolatus and high altitude species, such as Bunomys penitus occur. Bat diversity at high altitudes is lower (figure 9.22); in relation to vegetation type, this is due to the absence of some generalists at high altitudes.

In Lore Lindu NP, small ground mammal species diversity appeared to increase at mid levels of altitude, in lower montane rainforest and montane rainforests, but endemicity increased with altitude to peak in cloud forests and upper montane rainforest.

Other studies in the Philippines (Heaney et al. 1989) and in Indonesia (Musser, 1977; Kitchener et al. 1991a, 1991b and 1991c; Kitchener and Yani 1996; Kitchener et al. 1997, Kitchener and Yani 1988

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 124 and Kitchener et al. 1998) also show that endemic rodents were most commonly found at higher altitudes.

Unfortunately there are few studies in South East Asia that have examined changes in the species richness or species diversity of ground mammals with increasing altitudes. One of the reasons for there being so little information on such trends is that it requires a great deal of trapping effort spread throughout a year to elucidate such patterns. For example, Kitchener and Yani (1996) stated that more than 37,000 trap nights spread throughout the year with equal trapping effort in 79 sites was barely adequate for such purposes in the mountainous areas on Flores Island, Indonesia.

In the Park, ground mammal species diversity showed no great trend to decrease with increasing altitude. This was similar to that noted by Kitchener at al. (1997) in Irian Jaya and Heaney et al. (1998) in the Philippines. It differed, however, from that found by Medaway (1972), Langham (1983) and Kitchener and Yani (1998) where richness fell at higher altitudes.

The present study in the Park and those of Kitchener et al. (1997) in Irian Jaya, Heaney et al. (1989) in the Philippines; Medway (1997) in Malaysia and Kitchener et al. (1990), all recorded a decline in the number of species of bats in South East Asia with increasing altitude.

9.7.6 Conclusions

Initial results show that in the Park:

! rat trapping success is low, possibly due to the low density of rats in the Park; ! each vegetation type has a distinctive assemblage of small mammals, with some species shared in the mid elevation forest types, and a different assemblage in the higher elevations; ! monsoon forest has a very distinct assemblage of species; ! rat diversity is very low in disturbed forest; ! montane and cloud forest has high rat diversity, and very unique, though deporporate, fruit bat fauna; ! there is ecological sorting of rat and bat species with increasing altitude.

9.8 Large Mammal Distribution & Abundance Survey

In April to July 2001 a survey of the distribution and abundance of 4 species of large mammals in Lore Lindu National Park was carried out. The target species, anoa, babirusa, Sulawesi warty pig and Tonkean macaque, were chosen because they are all endemic to Sulawesi and considered high conservation importance (IUCN 2000). They were all suspected to live in the Park but nothing precise was known about their distribution or abundance. For full information on the survey refer to the survey final report (Burton 2001).

9.8.1 The Study Species

The Anoa (Bubalus (Anoa) depressicornis & B. (Anoa) quarlesi)

Anoa are endangered species of small buffalo endemic to Sulawesi, Indonesia (IUCN 2000). They are the largest mammals on the island (Whitten 1987), but remarkably little is known about the biology and ecology of such a large animal. Anoa taxonomy is confused and the current two species designation (Lowland and Mountain Anoa [Bubalus depressicornis & B. quarlesi]) is criticised (Pitra et al. 1997). Both species are reported by forest rangers to exist in the Park, but descriptions are sometimes inconsistent. There is more certainty that the Mountain form exists from skulls observed and fields studies conducted (Hedges in prep.; Schreiber & Nötzold 1995; Foead 1992). Therefore, in this report all Anoa will be treated as one form. Comments will be made on information gathered in questionnaires relating to differences in morphological forms in that report.

Though still widely distributed throughout Sulawesi their range is in decline due to habitat destruction and hunting (Lee 2000; Mustari 1995). Therefore, there is an urgent need for baseline surveys of this

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 125 species, as stated by the IUCN Cattle Action Plan (Hedges in prep.). The LLNP was listed as one of the top priority sites for conserving Anoa by MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986) and Hedges (in prep.). Babirusa (Babyrousa babirusa)

The Babirusa (Babyrousa babyrussa) is one of the world’s most bizarre endangered mammals, and is certainly one of the most extraordinary suids. The recent IUCN Babirusa Population and Habitat Viability Assessment drew attention to the need for more information on the distribution and population density of Babirusa in different regions of Sulawesi (Manansang et al, 1996b).

Recent field research indicates that Babirusa are being killed at a very rapid rate as a bi-product of the hunting for the other endemic wild pig (Sus celebensis) to supply market demand in the Manado region of north Sulawesi (Clayton and Milner-Gulland, 2000). There are also indications that the populations in central Sulawesi are being fragmented by deforestation. The nature of gene composition and flow between these populations is unknown and therefore the genetic importance of populations within the Park is uncertain.

Sulawesi Warty pig (Sus celebensis)

The Sulawesi warty pig is a medium sized pig, common in north, central and eastern Sulawesi (Macdonald, 1993). Wide-scale deforestation for timber and conversion of land to agriculture, coupled with human population expansion and immigration, have resulted in a marked contraction of the range of this animal in a number of areas within Sulawesi.

Tonkean macaque (Macaca tonkeana)

This species of macaque ranges from north of Palu to Tana-Toradja south of the Park and covers all of the eastern peninsular. Of the five species of short-tailed macaque (possibly 7) in Sulawesi, this is probably the most common, as its range covers the largest area. However, of all the species it has the smallest population within protected areas. Lore Lindu National Park makes up a considerable proportion of this area. This species may be being hunted for the “Bushmeat trade” supplying Manados’ markets (Lee 2000).

Ecological information is largely only available for M. nigra from the Tangkoko Reserve. This suggests that groups number about 30 individuals and densities are very varied. This is mainly related to altitude.

9.8.2 Large Mammal Research in Lore Lindu National Park

Few studies have been carried out on the above-mentioned species within the Park, especially research directly related to their conservation. The Anoa has been studied on three occasions in the Park and reports of its presence have been made on a number of other occasions. Babirusa have been reported to be present in the Park previously (WCMC 1991, Watling & Mulyana 1981).

Earlier Anoa studies focused on their ecology, distribution and conservation. Foead (1992) suggested conservation management changes to increase protection for these animals within the Park. For example he highlighted the Gunung Nokilalaki area as containing Anoa at the time of study, and suggests that the area’s status should be changed to a Sanctuary Zone to reduce human access. To compensate for loss of access for tourists, the Takolekaju area should be changed to a Wilderness zone, as it was already heavily used for access to the Besoa enclave.

Wirawan (1981) found hunters often focused their efforts around springs, as these areas were frequently visited by Anoa. Five locations of Anoa drinking springs were reported in the 1980s (Watling & Mulyana 1981). These were in central areas between Toro and Katu and south-east of the Besoa enclave. Sugiharta (1994) pointed to the requirement for abundant water sources, as did Mustari (pers. comm.).

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 126

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 127

There have been a reported reduction in the distribution of Anoa and their signs, as noted by hunters who were having to travel 2-3 days in 1994 to reach productive hunting areas, compared to close to their village fields 10–20 years previously (Hedges in prep.). The high altitude logging road in the Rorekatimbu area contained many Anoa dung piles in 1987 (Whitten et al. 1987), which by 1994 (Hedges in prep.) had become uncommon, possibly due to hunting or seasonal variations.

Anoa are thought to be selective browsers, however, information is varied about the preferred habitat of Anoa. Firstly Wirawan (1981) suggested that Anoa preferred well drained and rugged areas without dense undergrowth for feeding and dry ridge-tops for resting. However, Foead (1992) found dense, vegetationally diverse forest to be preferred by Anoa. Sugiharta (1994) thought a relatively low density of trees and a high density of understorey vegetation were those favoured by Anoa. He also pointed to the requirement for abundant water sources and minimal human activity.

The IUCN Asian Cattle Action Plan (Hedges in prep.) states TNLL would be a suitable site for detailed field research on Anoa, especially to investigate the effects of various human uses of the forest on the population (gathering of forest produce, cattle grazing, road construction, and tourism).

The Sulawesi warty pig and Tonkean macaque have both been reported to be common in the Park (Watling and Mulyana 1981, UNEP/FAO Report 1977).

9.8.3 Survey Methods and Locations

In order to survey the distribution of the target species various methods were used. Most of these were adaptations of methods applied elsewhere for the survey of ungulates in tropical forest. These methods have been adapted to deal with local conditions and the limited knowledge of anoa ecology.

9.8.3.1 Background to Survey Techniques

In order to assess distribution and abundance of large forest dwelling mammals indirect signs of their presence are commonly used due to the difficulties of direct observations. These include dung-based surveys (Hedges & Tyson unpubl. report; Walsh and White 1999) the use of other signs, including prints, feeding and resting areas. Dung surveys can allow estimation of relative abundance of species. However, the other signs can only be used to show differences in relative indices of abundance between sites and distribution, due to difficulties of accurately relating their frequency to animal numbers.

Distance Sampling Method for Anoa Distance sampling was selected to investigate Anoa dung abundance. A partial count can be used to estimate population size by developing a correction factor (Buckland et al. 1993). This will be used for direct observations of animals and indirect signs (prints, dung). The advantage of this method is the flexibility of the analysis, data can be grouped into intervals or not. Similarly, groups of animals can be used as well as individuals.

All Species Comparative Analysis Babirusa, Sulawesi warty pig and Tonkean macaque dung is far less frequently observed making comparable analyses impossible. However, using the “recce” technique, it is possible to assess the relative abundances of species between sites using indirect signs. The number of contacts for each sign is recorded on a survey of known length. Commonly the frequency of signs is calculated to give a frequency per kilometre, which is called the Encounter Rate. This means that even if there are differences in observer effort in distance surveyed, data can still be compared between sites. This has been suggested for use when densities cannot be estimated (Duckworth & Hedges 1998).

9.8.3.2 Survey Design

From 19th April to 20th June 2001 two field teams (4 members/team) carried out surveys at eight forest sites in Lore Lindu National Park.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 128

As this was a multi-species study there was the need to collect varying data types and analyse them differently for each species because of the variation in frequency in each sign type per species. A combination of techniques was adopted in this methodologyas follows:

The “Recce” Method The transect method mentioned above is very time consuming in forest conditions. To overcome this problem the “Recce” method is an adaptation that allows more rapid surveys by following the route of least resistance is followed rather than an exact compass bearing. A subset of the recces are paired with transects to allow calibration, or to estimate a functional relationship between the two methods. This coefficient is then used to convert the number of dung piles encountered to the expected number observed during a transect of the same length. Walsh and White (1999) developed this methodology from an unpublished report by Richard Barnes (1989) for studying the African elephant in the forests of Gabon. This has further been developed to use a randomly stratified sampling strategy to increase accuracy of estimations (Hedges and Tyson, unpubl. report) for the Asian elephant in Sumatra. Final density estimates can be calculated using the DISTANCE computer program (Buckland et.al. 1993) or Lopez program (Thomas 1998; Walsh 1998).

The layout of transects and recces at each site consisted of 15-20km/site, 12-16km recces and 1- 5km transects, within an area of roughly 8km2. The location transects were placed at right angles and 1km apart from each other (usually following map grid lines). Attempts were made not to lay these lines along linear features (such as ridge tops, valley floors, traversing valley sides). This could not be avoided totally and this rule was followed less stringently for recces because not all recces could be randomly located.

Recces were placed further apart than 100m, when a recce/transect comparison was not being made (50m apart). All recces/transects were located at least 50m from roads and normally avoided major forest trails. Occasionally however, recces followed small forest trails. The two survey teams worked concurrently in adjacent patches of the same site to complete the recces/transects. Calibration of the recce method with a paired transect was completed at each site for a minimum of two paired recce- transects (1km long and 50m apart). There was one exception due to the terrain being very steep. Altitude was measured using altimeters and indicated as meters above sea level (m asl).

Data sheets were used to systematically record data for direct observations and indirect signs of the study species. Though both of the above were recorded, the latter formed by far the majority of the data. These signs included dung, prints, feeding and resting areas. Additional data recorded for each sign included the perpendicular distance from the transect/recce, distance along the measured transect/ recce line, relative age of the sign (to be used for Anoa density estimations, once dung related information is available), and notes and photos were used to record interesting/unusual signs. Percentage visibility of the soil between 1-2m perpendicular to the transect were recorded and substrate type at every 100m along the transect/recce. Habitat description and topography of each transect/recce were recorded.

Transects/recces were walked at about 1-2km per hour. To locate the start points of transects/recces a GPS, map and compass were used. Locations of endpoints and some midpoints from recces were recorded using a GPS, where possible. All transect/recce distances were measured using a 50m measuring tape

9.8.3.3 Site Locations

The logistical difficulty of accessing many areas within the Park did not allow a random sampling strategy to be conducted. Survey sites were located to proportionally represent the broad vegetation types and a variation in level of human encroachment pressures present in the Park.

As an indication of the pressure from humans each site has been given a subjective category of Low, Medium or High Human Disturbance (Table 9.9). This relates to the number of trails, areas of field present, hunters traps and number people seen in the forest.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 129

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 130

Site Name Vegetation Type Alt. range Human Transects (km) Recces Recces (km) - Co-ordinates (Mean) Disturb. (km) Included in (51M- (m asl) Level Analysis UTM-) Rore -katimbu Cloud / Upper 1850-2500 Low 2 13.325 13 0203054 montane (1900) 9859663 Kamarora Lowland (& Lower 715-1270 High 3 17.475 16 0181794 montane) (899) 9865941 Pakuli Lowland / 311-1196 High 2 12.150 12 0831856 Monsoon (& (733) 9859170 Lower montane) Lempe Cloud / Upper 1694-2030 Low 3 13.650 13 0189691 montane (1867) 9803799 Toro Lower montane 792-1520 Low 3 13.850 13 0179165 (1163) 9830672 Katu Lower montane 1180-1345 Medium 4 14.500 14 0189257 (1115) 9829138 Lindu Lower montane (& 1048-1675 Medium 1 11.000 11 0186583 Upper montane) (1413) 9852090 Hanggira Upper montane / 1401-2015 Low 5 12.000 12 0185929 Cloud (1739) 9809666 TOTAL 23 107.95 104

Table 9.9: Characteristics of the Eight Survey Sites

Alt variation within Site & Site Alt mean was calculated from altitudinal recordings taken every 100m along each transect/recce during the survey. The max/min figures were then found and mean value for each site calculated. Human disturbance: A subjective gauge of frequency of people accessing the site. UTM co-ordinates of each site taken from the centre point of the site, using GPS unit.

Forest at higher altitude sites was generally less disturbed by human activity, especially in Rorekatimbu, which was accessed by a disused logging road far from settlements. Kamarora and Pakuli, also in the north, contained highly disturbed forest due to the easy access to nearby villages. Toro and Katu in the central band of the Park were both used by people at intermediate levels, while Hanggira and Lempe to the south were less disturbed.

9.8.4 Results

Forest surveys conducted covered a total of 71 survey man-days. During these 23km transects and 107.95km recces (104km used in Encounter Rate analysis) were carried out. (table 9.9). All data was transferred from field data sheets to Excel and Access programs for analysis.

9.8.4.1 General Patterns

Indirect signs of Anoa, Sulawesi warty pig and Tonkean macaque were recorded during forest surveys. Direct observations of Anoa occurred on one occasion in the Hanggira site. Babirusa were not observed and positive identification could not be made from indirect field signs, partly due to their similarity to Sulawesi warty pig signs. It is very possible Babirusa still exist in TNLL, but signs observed were too unclear to specify this pig species. They will therefore be mentioned at the end of appropriate sections, after data on the other three species have been presented.

It was not possible to clarify that a species was absent if no signs were observed using these methods. The results indicate that Sulawesi warty pig are very wide-ranging through all sites, while Anoa and Tonkean Macaque appear to be more restricted in distribution. The central mountainous region is the area where Anoa signs were found most consistently. The northwest area was of lowest importance for conserving Anoa, and boundary areas were of intermediate importance.

Signs of the study species were noted when observed while accessing or leaving a site to record how close to the boundaries of the Park the animals came and the human-animals interactions. It became clear that Sulawesi warty pig signs were found close to the forest edge bordering fields, which has been reported in the past, as they crop raid at night (Macdonald 1993). Macaque signs were generally less frequently observed so their distribution was not as clear, but transect data suggests that they also use forest close to fields and in disturbed forest areas, such as at the Kamarora site. Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 131

The distribution of the Anoa, however, was very different, almost the reverse - signs were rarely found close to villages. They were abundant some distance from areas of high human activity. This was usually some distance from the forest edge and so at higher altitudes. At this stage it is unclear whether this was due to hunting reducing numbers, the secretive behaviour of the Anoa, or a preference for habitats found a higher altitudes.

There were no signs of Babirusa recorded. Certain signs were noted that are similar to those produced by the ploughing behaviours of this species, however, these signs were unclear so could not be classified with certainty. Similar ploughing signs had been observed on different occasions at the Lindu site.

One Anoa skull and skeletal material was found at the Rorekatimbu site, which appeared to have died under an overhanging tree, a possible resting site. Two further skulls were found at the Katu site, reportedly to have died in snare traps and not been recovered by hunters before they had begun to decay. Snare traps designed for large mammals were also observed in most sites. Often it could not be identified if they were for Anoa or Sulawesi warty pig. Additionally, three locations were found where Anoa had been caught in a snare and in an attempt to escape they had destroyed the surrounding vegetation and left significant marks on the anchor tree.

Wallows were not observed frequently and most were not in present use by Anoa. They are reported to use wallows, but the reason for the lack of this being observed here is uncertain. Resting sites of Anoa were frequently observed in sheltered areas, especially obvious under roots of trees in the cloud forest.

Local guides reported that Anoa used mineral springs in the Dongi-dongi valley in the past 2 months, though this site was not visited during the study period. There are also a number reportedly to the north of Danau Lindu. The reason for the frequent use of this type of location was not identified, but is possibly for intake of certain minerals, or as a location for intra-species interaction.

9.8.4.2 Anoa Dung Density Estimation

To assess the abundance of the main focus species of the study, the Anoa, indirect sign frequency are analysed first. This looks specifically at dung due to its reliability as an indicator of animal abundance.

Anoa dung encounter rates recorded on the paired transect- recces were tested to see if they are significantly different. The Wilcoxon’s signed ranks test was used and showed no significant difference between frequency of dung on paired transects and recces [P > 0.05 (n=24)]. Therefore, there is no need to estimate a correction factor to calibrate the recces against the transects.

The 107.95km of Recce data (157 contacts, 71 survey days) was analysed in DISTANCE computer program to calculate the densities of Dung in at the 8 survey locations. This model predicts that in the sites surveyed within the Park Anoa dung occurs at a mean density of 3.65/ha. The sites were predicted to represent the major habitats present in the Park, but the surveys were not designed to represent the proportions of each of these habitats. It was therefore necessary to look at the data in further detail to identify the different dung densities in the various habitat types (Table 9.10 shows the results of this analysis). Due to the very low amounts of dung encountered in some location not all areas could be analysed in this manner and these data should be regarded with caution. They do, however, give a rough guide of the relative densities of dung in the higher density areas. At Pakuli and Kamarora no dung were recorded, showing the considerable variation across the locations.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 132

Site Model/Data Preparation AIC1 x2 GOF2 %CV3 df (contacts) Density Anoa dung (ha) Rore- Half-normal, Simple 212.6870 not possible 51.63 8 14.923 katimbu polynomial Model, truncation (89) distance 4.5m Lempe Negative Exponential, Simple 22.11990 P = 0.74534 49.48 18 5.4536 polynomial Model, truncation (11) distance 5.25m Hangg-ira Negative Exponential, Simple 43.39610 P = 0.88870 56.18 13 7.9970 polynomial Model, truncation (20) distance 5.25m Mean Half-normal, Simple 326.5215 P = 0.61898 33.63 80 3.6478 polynomial Model, truncation distance 4.5m

Table 9.10. Anoa Dung Density estimations.

9.8.4.3 All Species Exploratory Phase & Encounter Rates

- Between Site Variation of Encounter Rate Of the indirect signs observed, four were recorded most commonly: prints, dung, feeding, and resting signs. To display this indirect sign data, the Encounter Rate (ER), an index of abundance, is used to present the data in histograms below.

For this analysis only Recce data was used, as concurrently using the transect data could cause pseudo-replication, due to the close location of the paired transect/recces. Also though similar search effort was used in both survey types this may be more or less effective in these slightly different methods. So throughout the eight sites 104km of recce data is presented. Note the differences in scale of the y axis between Figures 9.22, 9.23 and 9.24, due to varying ER between the species.

16

14

12

10 Pr ints Dung 8 Feeding Res ting 6

Encounter Rate (signs/km) 4

2

0

Toro Katu Lindu Pakuli Lempe Kamarora Hanggira Rorakatimbu Sites Figure 9.22. Mean Encounter Rates of 4 Types of Anoa Sign in the 8 sites.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 133

25

20

15

10

Encounter Rate (signs/km) Pr ints 5 Dung Feeding Res ting 0

Toro Katu Lindu Pakuli Lempe Kamarora Hanggira Rorakatimbu Sites Figure 9.23. Mean Encounter Rates of 4 Types of Sulawesi Warty Pig Sign in the 8 Sites.

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4 Pr ints Dung 0.3 Feeding

0.2 Encounter Rate (signs/km)

0.1

0

Toro Katu Lindu Pakuli Lempe Kamarora Hanggira Rorakatimbu Sites

Figure 9.24. Mean Encounter Rates of 3 Types of Tonkean Macaque Sign in the 8 Sites.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 134

Several things can be noted from these figures: Firstly, Anoa ERs of dung and prints were higher than for the other species. Rorekatimbu had very high ER for dung, possibly due to the slower decay rate at near 2000m asl. There were also reasonably high ER of prints. Lempe, Katu, Lindu and Hanggira all have high ER of prints, dung lower, and feeding signs very low. All signs were absent from Kamarora and only prints were observed in Pakuli. Prints are ten times more common in most sites, but the number of prints, dung and feeding and resting sites have ERs in similar relative proportions between sites. Secondly, Sulawesi warty pig signs were present in all sites. The highest ER for all signs were in Kamarora, Pakuli, Toro, Lindu, and Katu sites. In Rorekatimbu and Lempe ERs were low, but they were present.

Thirdly, Tonkean macaque ERs show that either this method is less suited to arboreal mammals or this species may not be present throughout the Park, or if so, is present at very low densities (no signs in Hanggira or Lempe). Similar to the Sulawesi warty pig the highest ERs are at Kamarora and Pakuli.

- Significance of Between Site Variation in Encounter Rate. The significance of these observed variations in ERs between sites (in the histograms above) can be tested for statistical significance using the Kruskal-Wallis test to show which are the sites with greatest and least number of each sign. The sites have been classed (table 9.11) according to the two sites with the highest and lowest ranked results.

Species/Sign Highest Ranked Intermediary Sites/ Lowest Ranked Sites Sites Analysis Comments Anoa Prints Lempe, Hanggira all others Kamarora, Pakuli Anoa Dung Rorekatimbu, Lempe all others Kamarora, Pakuli Anoa Feeding no significant difference Anoa Resting Hanggira all others Kamarora, Pakuli S. Pig Prints Kamarora, Pakuli, all others Rorekatimbu, Lempe Katu Toro S. Pig Dung insufficient data S. Pig Feeding Katu, Lindu, Pakuli, all others Rorekatimbu, Lempe Kamarora, Hanggira, Toro S. Pig Resting Toro all others Lempe Macaque Prints Kamarora all others Rorekatimbu, Lempe, Katu, Hanggira Macaque Dung no significant difference Macaque Feeding no significant difference Macaque Resting insufficient data

Table 9.11. Kruskal-Wallis test Results Showing Sites with Highest and Lowest Mean Ranks of ER for all Species.

From the table above there are some clear patterns confirming the histograms. Firstly, for the Anoa, the highest mean ER signs were in sites Lempe, Rorekatumbu and Hanggira. Clearly the sites with the lowest mean rank for all signs tested were Kamarora and Pakuli. For Anoa feeding there was no significant difference between sites (P>0.05).

Secondly, the Sulawesi warty pig mean ER has placed Toro as the site with the highest values for all signs, closely followed by Kamarora, Pakuli and Katu. The lowest mean ERs for all signs have clearly grouped Rorekatimbu and Lempe sites into this category. Analysis of dung data was omitted as the ER was too low to produce meaningful results.

Lastly, the Tonkean Macaque mean ranks of ERs of prints gave Kamarora the highest value and grouped Rorekatimbu, Lempe, Katu and Hanggira with the lowest values. ERs of dung and feeding signs were not significantly different and there was insufficient resting sign data to analyse.

- Variation in Encounter Rates Between Anoa and Sulawesi Warty Pig Prints It is clear that there are differences in abundance of these species within TNLL. This is difficult to compare statistically as the signs of each species vary in their ease of detection. However, a histogram

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 135

16

14

12

10

8

6 Encounter Rate (signs/km) 4

2

0

Toro Katu Lindu Pakuli Lempe Kamarora Hanggira Rorakatimbu Anoa Sites Sulawesi warty pig

Figure 9.25 Comparison of Encounter Rates of Prints for Anoa and Sulawesi warty pig in 8 sites of the Anoa and Sulawesi warty pigs most frequently recorded sign, prints, clearly shows the higher frequency of Anoa prints than pig prints in Rorekatimbu, Lempe and Hanggira, and the reverse in Kamarora and Pakuli.

9.8.5 Discussion

9.8.5.1 Anoa

The distribution of the Anoa shows it is restricted to higher altitude sites (map 9.5), and not found in highly disturbed sites near settlements. The reason for their presence at higher altitudes is not clear and could be due to preference for upper montane and cloud forest habitats, food availability, lower human presence, or lower hunting pressure. Hedges (in prep.) reports that Anoa can survive in habitats up to 2000m, but at Lore Lindu NP it appears as if they prefer to inhabit the cloud forest found at this altitude and above, up to 2400m.

Anoa dung densities vary considerably between the eight sites and show variation between sites that could be related to habitat preferences or human presence/hunting. Estimates of dung density show some variation in different habitats. As this has not been carried out for the Anoa at other locations, no comparisons can be made with other populations.

The very high estimate for the Rorekatimbu site could partly be due to the slower decay rates of dung at a higher altitude, where micro-organisms and insects may be less abundant. For future analysis this will have to be accounted for, preferably by studying the decay rate at a number of sites at different altitudes.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 136

The analysis showed there were some clear habitat/altitudinal preferences displayed by the study species. The difficulty of recording indirect signs for these species meant there was no way of accurately comparing the frequency of signs between species. The only comparisons possible were the are the relative abundance of signs observed between sites.

From the Kruskel-Wallis and distance analysis of Anoa prints and dung, distriution of Anoa varies with altitude, high altitude areas contained more signs, mid altitude areas less abundant and lowland has very few signs, absent or so rare they were not recorded in this study. The reason for this could be due to human pressures (accessing the forest or directly from hunting), settlements are more common at lower altitude and so higher sites are less disturbed, and suffer less hunting.

The histogram of all Anoa signs showed them to be found in relative proportions to each other within each site. It could be suggested that prints could be used as another reliable indicator of Anoa abundance, and have the advantage that they are usually more abundant than dung, so less survey area would be needed. However, in Rorekatimbu this was not the case; there were more dung than prints, possibly because the substrate was less suitable for preserving prints.

It was reported that the range of Anoa within the Park is becoming rapidly reduced. This will mean that it could soon be split into small population, which have reduced chances of survival. Therefore, there is the need to control access/hunting into core areas. Rorekatimbu is a very important site due to the size of relatively undisturbed high altitude forest. It is also relatively inaccessible to local people, though hunting has occurred in the past, it may be easier to control this in the future.

In the Park the most significant threat to Anoa is from hunting. This is carried out by villagers living close to the forested areas and appears to be opportunistic as well as commercial on a small scale. Hunters are reportedly traveling further into the forest to access areas still containing populations of large mammals. For example 5-10 years ago this may have been up to 3 km from the village, but is now 10km away. Often these people; are moving further into forest to collect rattan and damar and opportunistically hunting while in the forest.

Due to the small amount of ecological and taxonomic data available it is not presently possible to give detailed estimates of the severity of this threat to the survival of Anoa. The population within the Park is possibly already isolated from other populations such as in Sulawesi Utara or Morowali. It will continue to be reduced in size, and probably be divided into sub-populations, if present hunting levels continue to spread throughout the Park.

9.8.5.2 The Sulawesi warty pig

The Sulawesi warty pig is widely distributed and appears to survive well in disturbed habitats close to settlements, as well as being present in high altitude areas. This suggests there is less of a problem with conserving this species. The Tonkean macaque also appears to survive well in lower altitude disturbed areas, though they are not found in all higher altitude sites.

The far wider distribution of the Sulawesi warty pig shows it is an adaptable species that can survive in differing habitats. The lower altitude sites have highest ranked ER, probably due to greater food availability. This species appears not to be affected negatively by disturbed habitat. It may even be preferable due to increased food variety. High altitude sites have the lowest ER for this species, possibly because the substrate is not suitable for preserving prints. There were a number of feeding signs in these areas, showing they are frequently used by pigs. The low frequency of dung signs may be due to the animals behaviour of defecating in one hidden location repeatedly. Feeding signs of this species were more visible than Anoa feeding signs which may explain the high feeding ER of this species compared to Anoa even at less preferred sites.

As the survey was completed in the rainy season, there may be differences in the distribution of animals throughout the year which were not recorded. Pigs are known to range further in the rainy season when water is more widely available.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 137

If pigs are hunted in the Park it does not seem to be restricting their range significantly, therefore this is not an immediate conservation issue that needs to be addressed specifically for this species.

9.8.5.3 Babirusa

Unconfirmed signs of Babirusa were found. If these are confirmed by future studies, the population may be of importance as it could be genetically distinct from the more abundant populations said to be present in North Sulawesi.

9.8.5.4 Tonkean macaque

The Tonkean macaque Kruskel-Wallis results and ER histograms suggested that this species may be restricted to certain regions of the Park, where preferred habitat exists. Other areas may only be used infrequently, such as over 2000m asl in Rorekatimbu. Food requirements such as fruit will be more abundant at lower altitudes, as seen in this study. Macaques appear to be in relatively low densities as none were directly observed.

In summary, the surveys above have shown that there are significant numbers of Anoa, Sulawesi warty pig and Tonkean macaque within the Park. In a Sulawesi-wide context the LLNP is one of the four most significant areas for conserving the Anoa, and a high priority for the other endemic large mammals of Sulawesi. The other comparable areas for conserving Anoa are mountains in the north of SE Sulawesi, Morowali Nature Reserve and Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park. The LLNP area is the meeting point of all the peninsulas of Sulawesi. The study species are all thought to be distributed along some or all of these peninsulas, but the levels of their relatedness/genetic similarity remains uncertain. It is therefore vital that the populations at this location are preserved and investigated. The size of the area also means that it is one of the few protected areas within Sulawesi that is large enough to support a long-term viable population of each of the above mentioned species.

9.9 Other Notable mammal species in Lore Lindu National Park

9.9.1 Sulawesi (Brown) Palm Civet (Macrogalidia musschenbroekii)

Known locally as Musang, this animal is closely related to the palm civets of the Sunda region. It is, however, another of Sulawesi’s endemic animals (and also another of its endemic mammal genera). It is Sulawesi’s largest native carnivorous mammal, with a diet of fruits and small rodents. An extremely agile climber, the Sulawesi palm civet is predominately nocturnal and is found in lowland and montane forests in Central, East and North Sulawesi

Though shy and rarely observed, the Civet is thought to be common in the Park, where it sometimes raids chicken roosts and hunts for rodents in forest gardens. An individual was captured alive in the Pipikoro area to the south of the park in 1999. Before being released into the forest, it was measured (9 kg, 130 cm head to tail) and photographed, one of the few times this creature has been photographed alive. A documentary video was published by TV New Zealand.

9.9.2 Tarsiers

Description of the tarsier A prominent part of Lore Lindu’s fauna are the tarsiers. These appealing nocturnal creatures are tiny primates of the genus Tarsius. They occur only in South-East Asia. With a head-and-body length of about 12cm, tarsiers belong to the smallest class of primates on earth. Most conspicuous are their huge eyes and large ears, which tend to give them an unusual appearance but are, in fact, excellent adaptations to their nocturnal lifestyle. A woolly pelage, the colour of which varies between a yellowish- grey and a dark brown, protects them from wet and cold conditions, and a tail, approximately 24cm long and densely-haired in the distal region, helps them balance in jumps of up to 4m.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 138

Behaviour Tarsiers are active between dusk and dawn. They use most of this time to hunt for insects, their favourite prey. They live in small family groups, normally comprised of an adult male, one or two adult females, and their offspring. Though tarsiers are solitary foragers, they gather at sunrise and sleep together in a family sleeping tree (mostly strangler figs, but also bamboo stands or shrubs). Each morning, and sometimes in the evening, the adults and sub-adults perform duet songs to mark and defend their territory, to strengthen the pair bonds and to announce their position in the home range, which is usually between one and two hectares.

Distribution One species, T. syrichta, is native to the southern Philippine islands. T. bancanus is found on the islands of the Sunda Shelf, while Sulawesi and its surrounding islands give room to at least four species; Tarsius sangirensis occurs on the Sangihe islands, T. spectrum in Northern Sulawesi, T. dianae in the lowland and lower montane forests of Central Sulawesi, and T. pumilus, a pigmy tarsier, of which only three specimens have ever been reliably recorded, is thought to inhabit the moss forests of Sulawesi’s central regions. However, considerable progress in tarsier research during the last ten years has resulted in discussions and re-evaluations of population distributions, and the names of some species are in the process of being changed.

Lore Lindu NP is inhabited by two species of tarsiers. The only record of Tarsius pumilus within the Park is from montane forest near the top of Gunung Rorekatimbu (Maryanto, in press.) and virtually nothing is known about its biology. With a head-and-body length of only 95mm, T. pumilus is the smallest of all tarsiers.

Kamarora is the type locality of Tarsius dianae, and most research has been conducted in this location. This species, however, is thought to be widespread throughout the lowland and lower montane forests of the National Park.

Threats to Tarsier Populations

Community Perceptions of the tarsiers Though known locally as Tangkasi, most villagers around the Park are unaware of the existence of tarsiers. Those who are aware, perceive them largely as a threat to their crops and chase them away or else kill them. Tarsiers can often be found in plantations during their nightly hunt for insects, and hence a common misbelief about tarsiers eating chocolate, coffee or coconut has arisen.

Hunting and Capturing Capturing tarsiers for sale, or hunting them for fun, has been reported, but, at the moment, seems not to be a major threat to population stability.

Pesticides and Chemicals The application of pesticides in forest gardens and plantations near to the forest has a much more pronounced effect; the decreased prey abundance not only drives tarsiers away, but the animals living on plantations where there is extensive use of poisons, have been found to have considerably lower health status and also to have lower body weights than usual. However, plantations on which no pesticides are applied, and which comprise the type of forest that has suitable sleeping sites nearby, are well-used by tarsiers.

Logging Logging, as another form of forest exploitation, has direct adverse effects on Tarsius. Research conducted in the Park, has revealed that population densities are considerably reduced in areas with extensive, though small-scale, timber, rattan and bamboo extraction. The loss of sleeping trees and locomotor supports for their nightly forages is the underlying reason.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 139

The protection of Sulawesi’s tarsiers

As the tarsiers of Lore Lindu are primates that are endemic to Sulawesi’s shrinking forests, and with the Park as their centre of distribution and biggest forest refuge in the region, strong efforts should be made to keep the number of these enchanting creatures at a self-sustainable level.

Tarsiers attract the attention of almost every visitor to the Park, and in Kamarora, guided tarsier watching has already become a small source of additional local income. The potential for sound ecotourism exists, and as these creatures are still widespread throughout the Park, this could be extended to other areas beyond Kamarora. In economic terms, tarsiers could also act as natural agents for the control of pests (insects) on local cash crop plantations. Regardless, conserving primates, man’s closest relatives, should be sufficient incentive for nature management efforts. Understanding the biology of the highly disputed genus Tarsius adds a considerable piece of knowledge on the origins of mankind. Now, whilst researchers slowly gain insight into the sociality and ecology of these animals, the threat of losing yet another primate species grows.

9.10 Fish (Pisces)

Very little is known about the fish in the Park, some collections have been made in Lake Lindu (see section 9.1.1) but very little work has been carried out in the two main river systems. Some assumptions must be made based on the information on the freshwater fish of Sulawesi.

All of the 68 native fish species of Sulawesi are described as secondary division fish (Kottelat et al 1993), that is they are probably marine of origin and although they now live in fresh water are supposedly tolerant of brackish and salt water.

As with other groups the fish fauna of Sulawesi is relatively species poor, - the 68 species in Sulawesi compare with 132 in Java and 394 in Borneo. As noted elsewhere, however, endemism is unusually high. 52 species, or 76% are endemic to Sulawesi, which compares to only 38% on Borneo. This level of endemism extends beyond the level of the species, including one endemic family Adrianichthyidae, represented by 5 species found only in Lakes Poso and Lindu (see below). It must be noted however that some authorities (Whitten et al 1987) consider these ‘duck-billed fishes’ as part of family that includes species ranging from India to Japan. Sulawesi is also home to 16 species in the family Telmatherinidae, which is known elsewhere only from western Irian Jaya. None of these species have been recorded in the Lore Lindu area in recent years.

In addition to this there are two species, the snakeheads, Channa striata, and climbing perch, Anabus testudineus that were formerly believed to be native but now are thought to have been introduced by man many generations ago (Kottelat et al 1993). More recent introductions of alien fish have caused havoc to the native fish fauna in several lakes, including lake Lindu (see below).

9.10.1 Fish of Lore Lindu National Park

As with the rest of Sulawesi the river fish of Lore Lindu NP are very under-researched. Fishing by local people occurs in a many rivers in and around the Park, by traditional means with lines and traps, but also increasingly with poison and electric shocks. The impact of this on fish populations, or the importance of fish as a source of protein and income to local people, is not known.

9.11 Reptiles (Reptilia) and Amphibians (amphibia)

Reptiles and amphibians (herpetofauna) follow the same pattern as the other vertebrate groups in Sulawesi. That is they are relatively species poor but have a high level of endemism. Only 31 species of amphibia have been recorded from Sulawesi, of which five are suspected to have been accidentally introduced by man (Iskandar and Colijn 2000). This compares to 100 species of amphibians on the neighbouring island of Borneo. Of the 26 native species, however, 15 (57%) are endemic to Sulawesi. Due to the low level of collecting that has taken place on Sulawesi this number is likely to be an underestimate of the total number of species and number of endemics. Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 140

The story is similar with reptiles, and more species may be awaiting discovery. A total of 103 reptiles (32% endemics) have been recorded from Sulawesi (not including marine turtles). Of these, 56 are terrestrial snake species, of which 18 are endemic and include two endemic genera (Rabdion and Cyclotyphlops) (Iskandar and Colijn 2001 & Ed Colijn pers comm. July 2001). This is in comparison with 166 species of snake on Borneo

9.11.1 Herpetofauna of Lore Lindu National Park As is the case for fish, very little is known about the herpetofauna of the Park. The few reptile surveys have identified 24 species from 13 families (appendix I.ii). The most famous is probably the reticulated python (Python reticulatus). This snake is still common in the Park below altitudes of 1000m, where it is probably the top predator and can reach over 6m in length. Although its diet usually consists of forest pigs (Sus celebensis), it has also been known to kill and eat people. There is a small trade in the skin of this species in Palu from animals that are opportunistically killed. The most commonly observed snakes are the racers (Elaphe erythrura and E. janseni), although other snakes encountered in the Park include the King Cobra (Ophiophagus hannah) and Green Whipsnake (Ahaetulla prasina). The park is also home to the endemic and little known Sulawesi Tortoise and the spectacular sailfin lizard Hydrosaurus amboinensis, the world’s largest agamid lizard (Whitten et al 1987), that can reach over 1m in length. They are always found near water and are very able swimmers, and despite their large size and ferocious look they are actually the only primarily herbivorous lizards in Indonesia.

Twenty-one species of Amphibians have been found in the Park, including four forms that may represent new species.

9.12 Invertebrates

The invertebrate fauna of Sulawesi and the Park is generally poorly documented.

The only group that has been studied to any great extent, is Lepidoptera. A study of butterflies around Kamarora (Selfi 1999) revealed the presence of 31 species from four families. This was by no means an exhaustive survey and investigated diversity at only one location on the edge of lowland forest. Further study of this obvious and easy to identify group across a range of locations could reveal a great deal more information on the diversity invertebrates in the Park.

The only other study of invertebrates in the region was included in a faunal biodiversity survey at Rano Padang (Krushelnicky et al 1999). This lake, which is located out side the Park, to the north east of Mt Rorekatimbu, is representative of the small high altitude lakes found in this region. The rapid survey of aquatic arthropods was not able to identify the organisms to species level but the list of morophotypes captured indicates that these isolated lakes are home to many groups not found in closed forests (table 9.12)

Order Family Common Name Oddonata Libellulidae sp. A Dragon flies (common skimmer) Lestidae sp. A Spread-winged damselflies Coenagrionidae sp. A Narrow-winged damselflies Coenagrionidae sp. B Narrow-winged damselflies Hemiptera Gerridae sp. A Water striders Notonectidae sp. A Backswimmers Coleoptera Gyrinidae sp. A Whirligig beetles Dytistidae sp. A Predaceous diving beetles Dytistidae sp. B Predaceous diving beetles Noteridae sp. A Burrowing water beetles Trichoptera sp. A Caddisflies sp. B Caddisflies Diptera sp. A Flies sp. B Flies

Table 9.12. Insect Morphotypes captured at Rano Padang (source: from Krushelnicky et al. 1999)

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 141

Insects play a vital role in maintaining forest ecosystems - they are decomposers, herbivores, predators and pollinators. There is, however, a dearth of information on the invertebrate life of Lore Lindu NP. With so little known, there is clearly scope for a great deal of additional work. Considering the degree of endemism in other taxa, there is a high chance that many endemic arthropod species exist in the Park, and the likelihood that there are many species not yet known to science. Some groups, such as dung beetles and butterflies (lepidoptera) are relatively well-known and easy to study.

9.13 Notes on the Fauna of Lake Lindu

9.13.1 Fish fauna of Lake Lindu The ANZDEC final report of April 1997 states that the Lake was occupied by several endemic fish species. We have only been able to confirm the presence of a small, 7 cm long adrianichthyid or Duck- billed Fish, Xenopoecilus sarasinorum. This family is a small one considered by some as endemic to Sulawesi with species found only in Lake Lindu and lake Poso (Kottelat et al 1993) Others think that the family includes species distributed in from India to Japan (Whitten et al). Whitten et al. (1987) state that there is no record of X. sarasinorum in lake Lindu since 1939. It is likely that it was extirpated by the introduced fish species.

According to Whitten et al. (1987), a number of exotic fish were introduced into the Lake in the 1950’s. These were: the cyprinids, Puntius gonionotus (Java Carp) and Cyprinus carpio (common Carp) (both 1955); the belontiid, Trichogaster trichopterus (Two–spot gourami)(1950’s) and Ospronemus goramys (Gouramy)(1955); and the cichlid, Oreochromis mossambicus (Mujair, Nila, Tilapia)(1951). The Nile Tilipia very successfully adapted to the Lake. Although not in his table of introduced fish, Whitten et al. (1987:293) states that the predatory Snakehead, Channa striata, was also present in the lake in the 1940’s.

It was reported in the ANZDEC final report (1997) that these introduced fish multiplied dramatically and were exploited commercially and marketed throughout the Palu Valley and surrounding valleys by Bugis in-migrants throughout the 1980’s, when the populations crashed. Acciaioli (1998) reports that in early 1999 the Lake was largely fished out; and that all that remained were some Mujair fish . These, however, were only sufficient for intermittent local consumption.

Acciaioli (1998) considers that several factors account for the decline in the Lake Lindu fishery. First, introduction in the rather predatory lele, catfish (Clarias batracus) in the Lake in the early 1990’s and secondly, and much more importantly, the use by the Bugis fisherman of gill nets (landak) that had very small mesh sizes. This led to the capture of small fish before they had bred. He goes on to say that “for the Bugis, this was no problem: they simply moved on to other endeavors at the Lake , including rattan collection, cultivation of wet rice, coffee and later cocoa”. This lack of consideration by Bugis to nurture and use resources in a sustainable manner at Lake Lindu and elsewhere, is attributed by Acciaioli (1998) to them being a classic diasporic society.

9.13.2 Other biota in the Lake Lindu environs

Fresh water eels- Migratory eels Anguilla spp. are indigenous to Lake Lindu (and L. Poso); few eels are now currently taken from Lindu (Whitten et al. 1987).

Freshwater molluscs- includes the following gastropods: hydrobiids, (Oncomelania hupensis; thiarids, Brotia scalariopsis and B.teradjarum; viviparids, Protancylus adhaerens; and corbiculid bivalves: Corbicula lindoensis and C. subplanata.

The gastropod O. hupensis was found in lake Lindu in the 1970’s by Carney et al. (1973). This was recognised as the intermediate host of the parasitic fluke Schistosomiasis which includes humans among its hosts. Other hosts reported around the lake by Carney et al. (1978) included civet cats, rats, shrews, wild pigs, water buffalo, cattle and horses. Infection occurs all around the swampy edges of the Lake. Despite a knowledge of the disease in the edges of Lake Lindu, a transmigration site was established there in the 1970’s. Some 60 % of the 500 migrants were infected by Schistosomiasis within six months. After estensive treatment the human incidence rate for Schistosomiasis in the Lake

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 142 area is now about 1%-3% which is about as low as can be realistically achieved because of the abundance of wild hosts in the area. Carney et al. (1977) report that a second fluke is known from the edges of the Lake and also further south in the river systems. It is not yet known to infect man but its snail host, Radix auricularia, occurs in the same habitat.

Whitten et al.(1987) record that in the early 1940s mussel beds of Corbicula lindoensis and C. subplanata were common along the shores of the Lake; these were consumed by people raw, or after only lightly boiling them. It is believed that eating these mussels led to the very high incidence of echinostomiasis in residents (96%) of Lindu. This disease, while not particularly serious, was caused by the echinostome fluke, the larvae of which lives in the mussels. This high infection rate continued to at least 1956, but the disease disappeared in the 1970s. Interestingly, this coincides with the disappearance of the mussels around the Lake, except for one small inaccessible spot near the outlet of the Lake in the north Whitten et al. (1987). Carney et al. (1980) considers that the most likely cause of the demise of the mussels was predation by Nile Tilipia on the mussel’s planktonic larvae.

Phytoplankton- the dominant species are Microcystis, Melosira and Synedra (Whitten et al. 1987)

Zooplankton- includes cladocerans (Daphnia), copepods (Cyclops) and rotiferans (Brachionus, Polyarthra, Monostyla, Vorticella and Filinia) (Whitten et al. 1987).

9.13.3 Conservation implications

Lehmusluoto et al. (1999: 136) state that it “is necessary to be aware of the ecological rules governing lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and wetlands in order to maintain their ecological health. Long-term monitoring is a prerequisite for action sustainable development and self sufficiency”. “Without vertical water column physics and chemistry, deep water “ventilation” and renewal and nutrient balances (N, P, S and Si) for example, the productivity cannot be evaluated. In this context, diel, seasonal, and long term spatial observations are needed”.

Given the ecological, social, and economic importance of Danau Lindu to its environmental surrounds and the agricultural systems of the Palu Plains.

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 160

APPENDICES

VOLUME I

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 161

Appendix I : Herpatofauna of Lore Lindu National Park I.i Amphibians Family Species Common Name

Bufonidae Bufo celebensis Microhylidae Kaloula albotuberculata Kaloula baleata Oreophryne spp. Rhacophoridae Polypedates leucomystax Four-lined tree frog Rhacophorus georgii Rhacophorus sp 1 Ranidae Hoplobatrachus (Fejervarya) cancrivorus Crab-eating frog Hoplobatrachus (Fejervarya) limnocharis Limnonectes sp1 Limnonectes sp 2 Limnonectes modestus complex Occidozyga celebensis? Occidozyga semipalmata? Rana (Hylarana) arfaki Rana (Hylarana) chalconota Rana (Hylarana) celebensis Rana (Hylarana) everetti Rana (Hylarana) macrops Rana (Hylarana) mocquardi Rana (Hylarana) sanguinea

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 162

I.ii Reptiles Family Species Common Name Status

Geoemydidae Cuora amboinensis Asian Box Turtle R, C Leptocephalon yuwonoi Sulawesi Forest Turtle R Emydidae Indotestudo forsteni? Sulawesi tortoise R, C Agamidae Bronchocela celebensis B. cristatella Crested lizard Draco beccarii Hydrosaurus amboinensis (celebensis) Dibamidae Dibamus celebensis Gekkonidae Cosymbotus platyurus Flat-tailed Gecko Cyrtodactylus jellesmae Gehyra mutilata Four-clawed Gecko Gekko gecko Tokay Gekko monarchus Spotted house Gecko Hemidactylus frenatus House Gecko Scincidae Emoia caeruleocauda Blue-tailed Skink Lygosoma bowringi Mabuya multifasciata Common sun Skink Sphenomorphus parvus Sphenomorphus variegatus Sphenomorphus new species Parvoscincus new species Tropidophorus new species Varanidae Varanus salvator Common water monitor C Cylindrophiidae Cylindrophis melanotus Elapidae Naja sputatrix? Indonesian spitting cobra Ophiophagus hannah King cobra R Colubridae Ahaetulla prasina Green whip snake Amphiesma celebica Boiga dendrophila Mangrove cat snake Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake Calamaria spp. Chrysopelea paradisii Paradise tree snake Dendrelaphis caudolineatus Striped bronze-back Elaphe erythrura Red-fronted racer Elaphe janseni Jansen's racer Enhydris plumbea Yellowbelly water snake Oligodon waandersi Psammodynastes pulverulentus Mock viper

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 163

Pythonidae Python reticulatus Reticulated python R Xenopeltidae Xenopeltis unicolor Sunbeam snake Crotalidae Tropidolaemus wagleri Wagler's pit-viper

Source: Dr Djoko Iskandar Dept of Biology, Bandung Technical Institute, West Java. Notes: R = red data book listed. C = CITES listed

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 164

Appendix II : Birds of Lore Lindu NP Family Species English name Global Status PODICIPEDIDAE : Tachybabtus ruficolis Red-throated Little Grebe PHALACROCORACIDAE : Phalacrocorax melanoleucos Little Pied Cormorant ANHINGIDAE : Anhinga melanogaster Oriental Darter N PELICANIDAE : Pelecanus conspicillatus Australian Pelican ARDEIDAE : Ardea purpurea Purple Heron Egretta alba Great Egret E. intermedia Intermediate Egret E.garzetta Little Egret Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Ardeola speciosa Javan Pond-heron Butorides striatus Striated Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-heron Ixobrychus sinensis Yellow Bittern I. cinnamomeus Cinnamon Bittern I. flavicollis Black Bittern CICONIIDAE : Ciconia episcopus Wooly-necked Stork THERESKIORNITHIDAE : Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis ACCIPITRIDAE : Aviceda jerdoni Jerdon’s Baza N Pernis celebensis Barred Honey-buzzard Macheiramphus alcinus Bat Hawk Elanus caeruleus Black-winged Kite Milvus migrans Black Kite Haliastur indus Brahminy Kite Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-eagle Icthyophaga humilis Lesser Fish-eagle Spilornis rufipectus Sulawesi Serpent-eagle SE Circus assimilis Spotted Harrier Accipiter griseiceps Sulawesi Goshawk SE A. trinotatus Spot-tailed Goshawk SE A. nanus Small Sparrowhawk SE A. rhodogaster Vinous-breasted Sparrow-hawk SE Butastus liventer Rufous-winged Buzzard N Ictinaetus malayensis Black Eagle Hieraatus kienerii Rufous-bellied Eagle Spizaetus lanceolatus Sulawesi Hawk-eagle SE, N FALCONIDAE : Falco moluccensis Spotted Kestrel F. severus Oriental Hobby F. peregrinus Peregrine Falcon DENDROCYGNIDAE : Dendrocygna guttata Spotted Whistling-duck D. arcuata Wandering Whistling-duck A. superciliosa Pacific Black Duck Aythya australis Australian Pochard ANATIDAE : Anas gibberifrons Sunda Teal Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 165

MEGAPODIDAE : Megapodius cummingii Philippine Scrubfowl N Macrocephalon maleo Maleo SE, V, R PHASIANIDAE : Coturnix chinensis Blue-breasted Quail Gallus gallus Red Junglefowl TURNIDAE : Turnix suscicator Barred Button-quail RALLIDAE : Gallirallus striatus Slaty-breasted Rail G. philippensis Buff-banded Rail G. torquatus Barred Rail Aramidopsis plateni Snoring Rail SE, V, R Gymnocrex rosenbergii Blue-faced Rail SE, V, R Poliolimnas cinerea White-browed Crake Amaurornis isabelinus Isabelline Bush-hen SE, R A. phoenicurus White-breasted Waterhen Gallicrex cinerea Watercock Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky Moorhen G. chloropus Common Moorhen Porphyrio porphyrio Purple Swamphen JACANIDAE : Irediparra gallinacea Comb-crested Jacana RECURVIROSTRIDAE : Himantopus leucocephalus White-headed Stilt CHARADRIIDAE : Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover Charadrius dubius Little Ringed Plover SCOLOPACIDAE : Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank T. glareola Wood Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper Gallinago megala Swinhoe’s Snipe Scolopax celebensis Sulawesi Woodcock SE, R, N STERNIDAE : Chlidonias hybrida Whiskered Tern COLUMBIDAE : Columba livia Rock Pigeon Streptopelia tranquebarica Red Collared Dove S. chinensis Spotted Dove Macropygia amboinensis Brown Cuckoo-dove Toracoena manadensis Sulawesi Black Pigeon SE, R Chalcophaps indica Emerald Dove C. stephani Stephan’s Dove Gallicolumba tristigmata Sulawesi Ground-dove SE, R Treron vernans Pink-necked Green Pigeon T. griseicauda Grey-cheeked Green Pigeon Ptilinopus fischeri Red-eared Fruit-dove SE, R P. subgularis Maroon-chinned Fruit-dove SE, R P. superbus Superb Fruit-dove P. melanospila Black-naped Fruit-dove Ducula forsteni White-bellied Imperial Pigeon SE, R D. radiata Grey-headed Imperial Pigeon SE, R D. aenea Green Imperial Pigeon D. luctuosa White Imperial Pigeon SE, R Cryptophaps poeccilorrhoa Sombre Pigeon SE, R, V

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 166

PSITTACIDAE : Trichoglossus ornatus Ornate Lorikeet SE T. flavoviridis Yellow-and-green Lorikeet SE, R Cacatua sulphurea Yellow-crested Cockatoo E Prioniturus platurus Golden-mantled Racquet-tail SE Tanygnatus sumatranus Blue-backed Parrot SE Loriculus stigmatus Large Sulawesi Hanging-parrot SE, R L. exilis Small Sulawesi Hanging-parrot SE, R CUCULIDAE : Cuculus crassirostris Sulawesi Hawk-cuckoo SE, R C. fugax Hodgson’s Hawk-cuckoo C. saturatus Oriental Cuckoo Cacomantis merulinus Plaintive Cuckoo C. sepulcralis Rusty-breasted Cuckoo Chrysococcyx minutillus Little Bronze Cuckoo C. russatus Gould’s Bronze Cuckoo Surniculus lugubris Drongo Cuckoo Eudynamis melanorhyncha Black-billed Koel SE E. scolopacea Asian Koel Scythrops novaehollandiae Channel-billed Cuckoo Phaenicophaeus calyorhynchus Yellow-billed Malkoha SE CENTROPODIDAE : Centropus bengalensis Lesser Coucal C. celebensis Bay Coucal SE TYTONIDAE : Tyto rosenbergii Sulawesi Masked Owl SE T. inexpectata Minahasa Masked Owl SE, R, D STRIGIDAE : Otus manadensis Sulawesi Scops-owl SE Ninox ochracea Ochre-bellied Boobook SE,R N. punctulata Speckled Boobook SE CAPRIMULGIDAE : Eorostopodus diabolicus Heinrich’s Nightjar SE, R, V E. macrotis Great Eared Nightjar Caprimulgus celebensis Sulawesi Nightjar SE C. affinis Savanna Nightjar APODIDAE : Collocalia fuciphaga Edible-nest Swiftlet C. vanikorensis Uniform Swiftlet C. infuscata Moluccan Swiflet C. esculenta Glossy Swiftlet Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail H. celebensis Purple Needletail Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift HEMIPROCNIDAE : Hemiprocne longipennis Grey-rumped Tree-swift HALCYONIDAE : Actenoides monachus Green-backed Kingfisher SE, R A. princeps Scaly-breasted Kingfisher SE, R Cittura cyanotis Lilac-cheeked Kingfisher SE, R Halcyon melanorhyncha Great-billed Kingfisher H. chloris Collared Kingfisher ALCEDINIDAE : Ceyx fallax Sulawesi Dwarf Kingfisher SE, R Alcedo meninting Blue-eared Kingfisher A. atthis Common Kingfisher Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 167

MEROPSIDAE : Merops philippinus Blue-tailed Bee-eater M. ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Meropogon forsteni Purple-bearded Bee-eater SE, R CORACIIDAE : Coracias temminckii Purple-winged Roller SE Eurystomus orientalis Common Dollarbird BUCEROTIDAE : Penelopides exarhatus Sulawesi Dwarf Hornbill SE Rhyticeros cassidix Knobbed Hornbill SE PICIDAE : Dendrocopos temminckii Sulawesi Pygmy Woodpecker SE Mulleripicus fulvus Ashy Woodpecker SE PITTIDAE : Pitta erythrogaster Blue-breasted Pitta N HIRUNDINIDAE : Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow H. tahitica Pacific Swallow MOTACILLIDAE : Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail M. cinerea Grey Wagtail CAMPEPHAGIDAE : Coracina temminckii Caerulean Cuckoo-shrike SE, R C. leucopygia White-rumped Cuckoo-shrike SE C. abbotti Pygmy Cuckoo-shrike SE, R C. tenuirostris Common Cicadabird C. morio Sulawesi Cicadabird SE Lalage leucopygialis Sulawesi Triller SE L. suerii White-shouldered Triller DICRURIDAE : Dicrurus montanus Sulawesi Drongo SE, R D. hottentotus Hair-crested Drongo ORIOLIDAE : Oriolus chinensis Black-naped Oriole CORVIDAE : Corvus enca Slender-billed Crow C. typicus Piping Crow SE TIMALLIDAE : Trichastoma celebense Sulawesi Babbler SE Malia grata Malia SE, R Geomalia heinricia Geomalia SE, R, N TURDIDAE : Heinrichia calligyna Great Shortwing SE, R Zoothera erythronota Red-backed Thrush SE, R, N Cataponera turdoides Sulawesi Thrush SE, R Saxicola caprata Pied Chat

PARDALOTIDAE : Gerygone sulphurea Flyeater SYLVIIDAE : Bradypterus castanerus Chestnut-backed Bush-warbler R Locustela fasciolata Gray’s Grasshopper-wabler Acrocephalus stentoreus Clamorous Reed-warbler A. orientalis Eastern Great Reed-warbler Orthotomus cuculatus Mountain Tailorbird Phylloscopus borealis Arctic Leaf-Warbler P. sarasinorum Sulawesi Leaf-Warbler SE, R Megalurus timoriensis Tawny Grassbird

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 168

CISTICOLIDAE : Cisticola juncidis Zitting Cisticola C. exilis Golden-headed Cisticola MUSCICAPIDAE : Muscicapa griseisticta Grey-streaked Flycatcher Muscicapa dauurica Asian Brown Flycatcher D Eumyias panayensis Island Verditer Flycatcher Ficedula mugimaki Mugimaki Flycatcher F. hyperythra Snowy-browed Flycatcher Ficedula rufigula Rufous-throated Flycatcher SE, R, N F. westermanni Little Pied Flycatcher Cyornis hoevelli Blue-fronted Flycather SE, R C. rufigastra Mangrove Blue Flycatcher MONARCHIDAE : Hyphothymis azurea Black-naped Monarch RHIPIDURIDAE : Rhipidura teijsmanni Rusty-bellied Fantail SE, R PETROICIDAE : Culicicapa helianthea Citrine Flycatcher PACHYCEPHALIDAE : Hylocitrea bonensis Yellow-flanked Whistler SE, R Coracornis raveni Maroon-backed Whistler SE, R Pachycephala sulfuriventer Yellow-vented Whistler SE, R ARTHAMIDAE : Arthamus leucorhynchus White-breasted Wood-swallow A. monachus Ivory-backed Wood -swallow SE STURNIDAE : Aplonis minor Short-tailed Starling A. panayensis Asian Glossy Starling Basilornis celebensis Sulawesi Crested Myna SE Streptocitta albicollis White-necked Myna SE Enodes erythrophris Fiery-browed Starling SE Scissirostrum dubium Grosbeak Starling SE MELIPHAGIDAE : Myza celebensis Lesser Sulawesi Honeyeater SE, R M. sarasinorum Greater Sulawesi Honeyeater SE, R Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet Honeyeater NECTARINIIDAE : Anthreptes malacensis Brown-throated Sunbird Nectarinia aspasia Black Sunbird N. jugularis Olive-backed Sunbird Aethopyga siparaja Crimson Sunbird DICAEIDAE : Dicaeum aureolimbatum Yellow-sided Flowerpecker SE D. nehrkorni Crimson-crowned Flowerpecker SE, R D. celebicum Grey-sided Flowerpecker SE ZOSTEROPIDAE : Zosterops montanus Mountain White-eye Z. chloris Lemon-bellied White-eye Z. atrifrons Black-fronted White-eye Lophozosterops squamiceps Streak-headed Darkeye SE, R PASSERIDAE : Passer montanus Tree Sparrow

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 169

ESTRILDIDAE : Erythrura hyperythra Tawny-breasted Parrot-finch E. trichroa Blue-faced Parrot-finch Lonchura molucca Black-faced Munia L. punctulata Scaly-breasted Munia L. malacca Chesnut Munia L. pallida Pale-headed Munia FRINGILIDAE : Serinus estherae Mountain Serin R

Source: Fachry and Buttu Ma'dika (1999),

Notes : Nomenclature and Sulawesi endemic status follow Coates & Bishop (1997) Threat status follows J. Shannaz, P. Jepson & Rudyanto (1995). Global status : C = Critical, E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, N = Near-threatened, R = Restricted-range species, D = Data deficient, SE = Endemic to Sulawesi

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 170

Appendix III : Bird species recorded in the survey ordered by vegetation type

Species (Sulawesi endemics ower

in Bold) Savannah Monsoon Lowland Forest Mixed Garden Marsh Swamp Forest L Montane Moist Lower Montane Montane Upper Montane Haliastur indus X X X X X X Spilornis rufipectus X X X X X X X X X X Hieraaetus kienerii X Gallus gallus X X X X X X Turnix suscitator X Ptilinopus melanospila X X X X X X X X X X Ducula aenea X X X X X X X X Turacoena manadensis X X X X X X X Macropygia amboinensis X X X X X X X X X X Streptopelia tranquebarica X Streptopelia chinensis X X X X Chalcophaps indica X X X X Prioniturus platurus X X X X X X X X X Tanygnathus sumatranus X X X X X X X Loriculus stigmatus X X X X X X X X X Loriculus exilis X X X X X X X X X Cacomantis merulinus X X X X X X X X X Cacomantis sepulcralis X X X X X X X X X X Chrysococcyx russatus X X X Surniculus lugubris X Eudynamys melanorhyncha X X X X X X X X Rhamphococcyx calyorhynchus X X X X X X X X X X Centropus bengalensis X X X X X X X Centropus celebensis X X X X X X X X X X Aerodramus vanikorensis X X Aerodramus infuscatus X X X X X X X X Collocalia esculenta X X X X X X X X X X Hemiprocne longipennis X X X X X X X X X Halcyon chloris X X X X X X X X Merops philippinus X X X X X Merops ornatus X X Coracias temminckii X X X X X X X X Penelopides exarhatus X X X X X X X X X Rhyticeros cassidix X X X X X X X X X X Hirundo tahitica X X X X X X Coracina leucopygia X X X Coracina morio X X X X X X X X X X Trichastoma celebense X X X X X X X X X X Culicicapa helianthea X X X X X X X X X X Gerygone sulphurea X X X X X X X X X Hypothymis azurea X X X X X X X X X X Dicaeum aureolimbatum X X X X X X X X X X Dicaeum celebicum X X X X X X X X X X Nectarinia aspasia X X X X X X X X X Nectarinia jugularis X X X X X X X Zosterops chloris X X X X X X X X Lonchura molucca X X X X X Lonchura punctulata X Lonchura malacca X X X X X Lonchura pallida X X Streptocitta albicollis X X X X X X X X X X Acridotheres javanicus X

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 171

Savannah Monsoon Lowland Forest Mixed Garden Marsh ForestSwamp Lower Montane Moist Lower Montane Montane Upper Montane Cloud Forest Oriolus chinensis X X X X X X X X X X X Dicrurus hottentottus X X X X X X X X X X Corvus enca X X X X X X Milvus migrans X Accipiter nanus X X X X X X X Spizaetus lanceolatus X X X Rallina eurizonoides X X Treron griseicauda X X X X X X X Ptilinopus fischeri X X X X X X X Eudynamys scolopacea X X X X X X Hirundapus caudacutus X X X Apus pacificus X X X X X Mulleripicus fulvus X X X X X X X X X X Dendrocopos temminckii X X X X X X X X X X Pitta erythrogaster X X X X X X X X Lalage leucopygialis X X X X Pycnonotus aurigaster X Cisticola juncidis X X Cisticola exilis X X X X Cyornis rufigastra X X X X X X X X X X Anthreptes malacensis X X X X X X X Zosterops atrifrons X X X X X X X X X X Basilornis celebensis X X X X X X X X X X Scissirostrum dubium X X X X X X X X X Pernis celebensis X X X Calidris tenuirostris X X Treron vernans X X X X Ptilinopus superbus X X X X X X X X X Ducula forsteni X X X X X X X X X Ducula radiata X X X X X X X X Trichoglossus ornatus X X X X X X X X X Cuculus saturatus X X X X X X X X Ceyx fallax X X X Actenoides monachus X X X X X Phylloscopus sarasinorum X X X X X X X Rhinomyias colonus X X Muscicapa dauurica X Cyornis hoevelli X X X X X X X X X Rhipidura teysmanni X X X X X X X X Pachycephala sulfuriventer X X X X X X X X X Aethopyga siparaja X X X X X X X X Aplonis panayensis X X X Enodes erythrophris X X X X X X X X Dicrurus montanus X X X X X X Accipiter griseiceps X X X X X Accipiter trinotatus X X X X X Coracina tenuirostris X X X X X X X Dicaeum nehrkorni X X X X X X Artamus monachus X X X X X X X Ardea sumatrana X Ardea purpurea X Bubulcus ibis X Plegadis falcinellus X Haliaeetus leucogaster X Accipiter rhodogaster X X

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 172

Savannah Monsoon Lowland Forest Mixed Garden Marsh ForestSwamp Lower Montane Moist Lower Montane Montane Upper Montane Cloud Forest Anas superciliosa X Gallirallus philippensis X X Gallinula chloropus X Cuculus crassirostris X X X X X X Eumyias panayensis X X X X X X X Ficedula westermanni X X X X X X Passer montanus X Gallirallus torquatus X X Amaurornis isabellina X X Amaurornis phoenicurus X Gallicolumba tris tigmata X X X X X X Trichoglossus flavoviridis X X X X X Cuculus sparverioides X X Alcedo atthis X X Coracina abbotti X X X X X Malia grata X X X X X Ficedula hyperythra X X X X X X Ficedula rufigula X X X X X X Coracornis raveni X X X X Zosterops montanus X X X X X Artamus leucorynchus X X Aramidops is plateni X X Prioniturus flavicans X Eurystomus orientalis X Heinrichia calligyna X X X X X Orthotomus cuculatus X X X X X Co rvus typic us X X X X Tachybaptus novaehollandiae X Macheiramphus alcinus X Elanus caeruleus X Accipiter soloensis X Ictinaetus malayensis X X Ptilinopus subgularis X X X Ducula luctuosa X X Chalcophaps stephani X Ninox ochracea X Caprimulgus macrurus X Apus affinis X X X Meropogon forsteni X X X Motacilla flava X Motacilla cinerea X Coracina temminckii X X X X Zoothera erythronota X Muscicapa griseisticta X Hylocitrea bonens is X X X X Zosterops consobrinorum X Lophozosterops s quamiceps X X X X Myzomela sanguinolenta X X X X Myza celebensis X X X X Myza sarasinorum X X X X Megapodius cumingii X X Cryptophaps poecilorrhoa X X X Eurostopodus macrotis X Cataponera turdoides X Phylloscopus borealis X X Actenoides princeps X Lalage sueurii X Erythrura hyperythra

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 173 a

Bear Cuscus Cuscus Bear Small Sulawesi Cuscus Forest Shrew Mossy Sulawesi Long-tailed Shrew Lesser Black-footed Shrew NibilamTembung Sulawesi Tiny Shrew Shrew Mehmu Black-footed Bubutu Shrew White-handed Sulawesi House Shrew Cucurut Ekor Panjang Sulawesi Lumut Cucurut Hutan Cucurut Kaki Hitam Sulawesi Celebes Flying Fox P, SE Putih Kaki Cucurut Rousette Sulawesi Greater SE Cucurut Cebol Sulawesi Fruit-bat P,SE Black-capped Hitam Kaki Cucurut SE Fruit-bat Dog-faced Sulawesi SE Fruit-bat Dog-faced Small Fruit-bat Cucurut Rumah Short-nosed besar SE Sulawesi Cecadu SE Fruit-bat Bare-backed Celebes Kalong SulawesiSulawesi Codot Fruit-bat Bare-backed SE Lesser Hitam Kepala Codot Greenish Bare-backedFruit-bat Mini Codot Fruit-bat Harpy Fruit-bat Small-toothed Sulawesi Kubu SE Pallas'Bat Tube-nosed Barong Codot Kecil Kubu Kubu Hijau C2 Kecil Gigi Codot Harpi Codot Paniki Pallas SE K SE SE

Ailurops ursinus Strigocuscus celebensis musseri Crocidura Crocidura elongata Crocidura lea levicula Crocidura Crocidura nigripes Crocidura rhoditis Suncus murinus Acerodon celebensis Boneia bidens Chironax melanocephalus luzoniensis Cynopterus Cynopterus minutus Cynopterus brachyotis Cynopterus sphinx exoleta Dobsonia Dobsonia minor Dobsonia viridis Harpyionycteris celebensis Neopteryx frosti cephalotes Nyctimene Phalangeridae

Soricidae Pteropodidae Order Family MARSUPIALIA INFRACLASS Species DIPROTODONTIA English Name Indonesian Name GlobalSt INFRACLASS EUTHERIA INSECTIVORA CHIROPTERA Appendix IV : Terrestrial Mammals of Sulawesi IV : Terrestrial Appendix

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 174 t Lesser Tube-nosed Bat Bat Tube-nosed Lesser Black Flying-fox Flying-fox Mollucan Northern Gray Flying-fox Small Flying-fox SE Geoffroy's Rousette Theobald Sulawesi Paniki Morotai Kalong Rousette Celebes SE Fruit-bat Stripe-faced Kalong Hitam Fruit-bat Swift Kalong Kelabu Tailless Fruit-batJavan Tomb-bat Kubar Kalong Nyap Biasa Kecil Lesser Long-tounged Fruit-bat Garis Muka Sulawesi Codot Nyap Bat Sheath-tailed Philippine Bat Sheath-tailed Black Blyth's Tomb-bat Cecadu Pisang KecilBlack-bearded Tomb-bat Walet Codot Kembang Lalai Theobald's Besar Ekor-trubus Kelelawar SE Lesser False Vampire Hitam Ekor-trubus Kelelawar Horseshoe-bat Arcuate Celebes Horseshoe-bat Kubar Janggut-hitam Trubus Kubar Broad-eared Horseshoe-bat Horseshoe-bat Philippine Bat Leaf-nosed Dusky Vampir Palsu Gould's Leaf-nosed Bat Ladam Prok-bruk Bat Leaf-nosed Diadem Prok-bruk Prok-bruk Maluku Sulawesi Bat Leaf-nosed Fierce Filipina Prok-bruk Bat Leaf-nosed Crested Malaya Barong Barong Gauld Besar Barong Galak Barong Bermahkota Barong SE SE Nyctimene minutus alecto Pteropus Pteropus caniceps griseus Pteropus Pteropus hypomelanus amplexicaudatus Rousettus ? Rousettus celebensis Rousettus Styloctenium wallacei Thoopterus ? nigrescens Thoopterus spelaea Eonycteris minimus Macroglossus Emballonura alecto nigrescens Mosia saccolaimus Saccolaimus Taphozous melanopogon Taphozous theobaldi Megaderma spasma Rhinolophus arcuatus Rhinolophus celebensis Rhinolophus euryotis Rhinolophus philippinensis Hipposideros ater Hipposideros cervinus Hipposideros diadema Hipposideros dinops Hipposideros inexpectatus Macroglossinae Emballonuridae Megadermatidae Rhinolophidae Hipposideridae Order Family Species English Name Indonesian Name GlobalSta

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I

175 t Bat Mastiff Celebes Tarsier Diana Lesser Sulawesi Tarsier Tarsier Sulawesi Greater Macaque Heck's Sulawesi Tayo Kecil Krabuku Tangkasi Krabuku Diana Krabuku C2 SE, C2 SE, C2 SE, C2 SE, Macros Leaf-nosedBat Sulawesi False Serotin Bat Bat Forest Hardwicke's Bat Trumpet-eared Peter's Papillose Bat Bat Little Long-fingered Barong Makro Bat Long-fingered Pygmy Bangkalit Bat SulawesiLong-fingered Bat Long-fingered color Dark Hardwick Lenawai Terumpet Lenawai Flores Tube-nosed Bat Bat Tube-nosed Brown Bat Large-footed Australia Tomosu Dani Tomosu Hogson's Bat Besar Tomosu LenawaiDeignan'sKupu-kupu Bat SE Bat Muricol's Biasa Tomosu Bat Brown Guinea New Pungit Pipistrelle FloresBrown Coklat Pungit Pipistrelle Javan Minahassa Pipistrelle Biasa Lasiwen Pipistrelle Least Bat Celebes Yellow Bat Lasiwen Yellow Hogson Lesser Asiatic Brachipteri Sekiwen Bat Lasiwen Club-footed DeignanGreater Biasa Lasiwen Coklat Sekiwen SekiwenJawa Sekiwen Minahasa Asia Pedan Kecil Sekiwen Sulawesi Pedan K Besar Kekeki SE Mops sarasinorum sarasinorum Mops Tarsius dianae pumilus Tarsius spectrum Tarsius hecki Macaca Hipposideros macrobullatus gaskelli Hesperoptenus hardwickei Kerivoula jagori Kerivoula Kerivoula papillosa australis Miniopterus pusillus Miniopterus schreibersi Miniopterus tristis Miniopterus Murina florium suilla Murina Myotis adversus Myotis formosus Myotis horsfieldii Myotis muricola Philetor brachypterus imbricatus Pipistrellus javanicus Pipistrellus minahassae Pipistrellus tenuis Pipistrellus Scotophilus celebensis Scotophilus kuhlii robustula Tylonycteris

PRIMATA Tarsiidae Cercopithecidae Vespertilionidae Vespertilionidae Molossidae

Order Family Species English Name Indonesian Name GlobalSta

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I

176 t Moor MacaqueMoor Macaque Black Crested Gorontalo Macauq Booted Macaque Tonkean Macaque CivetSulawesi Palm Wolai Monyet Palm CivetCommon Monyet Darre Malayan Civet Monyet Yaki Monyet Boti Babirusa Celebes Wild Pig Sulawesi Musang C2 SE, Deer Russa Musang Luwak SE,C2 Lowland Anoa TenggalungMalaya Mountain Anoa SE, C2 SE,C2 SE,C2 R,C1, P SE, Celebes Babi Long-nosed Vavu Squirrel Tualangio Babirusa Sulawesi LowlandLong-nosed Squirrel C3 Salokko Dwarf Squirrel Timor Rusa Squirrel Dwarf Walacea Dataran Anoa Squirrel Dwarf Celebes Anoa Gunung Squirrel Dwarf Weber's Sulawesian P V, RedC1, Bellied SE, Squirrel SE SE,V SE Tendelango Sulawesi SE Walacea Tendelango P Buntu-kecil Tendelango BajingMerah SE,C1, E,P Weber Tendelango SE, C1, E, P SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Macaca maurus Macaca nigra nigrescens Macaca ochreata Macaca Macaca tonkeana musschenbroekii Macrogalidia hermaphroditus Paradoxurus tangalunga Viverra Babyrousa babyrussa Sus celebensis Cervus timorensis depressicornis Bubalus quarlesi Bubalus heinrichi Hyosciurus Hyosciurus ileile abstrusus Prosciurillus Prosciurillus leucomus Prosciurillus murinus Prosciurillus weberi Rubrisciurus rubriventer andrewsi Bunomys chrysocomus Bunomys coelestis Bunomys

Suidae Muridae CARNIVORA Viverridae ARTIODACTYLA Cervidae Bovidae RODENTIA Sciuridae

Order Family Species English Name Indonesian Name GlobalSta Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I

177 t SE SE SE SE SE Celebes Rat Swamp Sulawesi SpinyRat Sulawesi Soft-furred Rat Mouse Tree Pygmy Celebes SE Rat Giant Sulawesi SE SE Tikus Rawa Sulawesi Rat Spiny Dollman's Kerdil Ranai Tikus Lehio Tikus Duri Sulawesi Sulawesi SpinyRat rat Spiny Musschenbroek's Rat Spiny Watts' Sulawesi Raksasa Tikus Rat Lesser Shrew SE SE Mouse House SE SE Lesoq-lati Dolman Mussenbrok Lesoq-lati SE SE SE Lesoq-lati Sulawesi Rat Ricefield Bonthain Rat Watsi Rat Lesoq-lati Polynesian Cucurut Tuni Rat Bulukumba SE -bellied Rat Gray SE Rat Tondanus' Rumah Mencit Lompobatang Mountain rat SE Himalayan rat Rat Brown SE Sawah Tikus Japan's House rat Tikus Bonthain Xanthurus' Rat Polynesia Tikus SE Rat Black Tikus Bulukumba Tikus Lompobatang Tikus Perut Kelabu Tikus Tondano Tikus Himalaya Tikus Rumah SE Tikus Riul SE SE SE Tikus Xanthurus SE SE Bunomys fratrorum fratrorum Bunomys heinrichi Bunomys Bunomys penitus Bunomys prolatus celebensisCrunomys leucura Echiothrix canus Eropeplus minahassae Haeromys Lenomys meyeri beccarii Margaretamys elegans Margaretamys parvus Margaretamys Maxomys dollmani Maxomys hellwaldii musschenbroekii Maxomys wattsi Maxomys naso Melasmothrix rhinogradoides Malasmothrix musculus Mus dominator Paruromys Paruromys ursinus argentiventer Rattus Rattus bontanus exulans Rattus Rattus foramineus Rattus hoffmanni Rattus marmosurus Rattus mollicomulus nitidus Rattus norvegicus Rattus tanezumi Rattus xanthurus Rattus rattus Rattus

Order Family Species English Name Indonesian Name GlobalSta

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 178 t

SE Rat Tankoko's SE SE SE SE Tate's rat Long-tailed Tate's rat Tikus Tangkoko Porcupine Javan SE jawa Landak SE SE Taeromys arcuatus callitrichus Taeromys Taeromys celebensis hamatus Taeromys Taeromys punicans taerae Taeromys Tateomys macrocercus rhinogradoides Tateomys Hystrix javanica

PUSLITBANG Biologi, LIPI, Bogor Global Status P = Protected in Indonesianlaw = EndemicSE to Sulawesi CitesC1 = appendix 1,C2 = Cites appendix 2, = cites C3 appendix 3 listing) (IUCN insufficient data = K Threatened, T = Intermediate, = I Rare, = R Vulnerable, = V Endangered, = E Status in LLNP ? Probably = occurs butnot confirmed; = N not present; P = present but status unknown;= common;rare; R = C data bank no = Order follows: (1998) Sugardjito and Maharadatunkamsi Maryanto, Yoneda, Suyanto, Hystricidae Adapted from: Ibnu Maryanto Order Family Species English Name Indonesian Name GlobalSta

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I

179

Appendix V : List of Bats captured during the survey Listed by vegetation type

Spesies captured# Monsoon Degraded Lowland Lowland Forest Mixed Garden Marsh ForestSwamp Lower Montane Moist Lower Montane Montane Upper Montane Cloud Forest Styloctenium wallacei 7 X X X X Dobsonia exoleta 65 X X X X X X X X X Cynopterus minutus 63 X X X X X X X X X Cynopterus luzoniensis 140 X X X X X X X X X Thoopterus nigrescens 1481 X X X X X X X X X X X Rousettus amplexicaudatus 12 X X X X Rousettus celebensis 988 X X X X X X X X X X Macroglossus minimus 165 X X X X X X X X X X X Cynopterus brachyotis 84 X X X X X X X X Nyctimene cephalotes 8 X X X X Harpyionycteris celebensis 33 X X X X X X X X X Eonycteris spelaea 1 X Boneia bidens 4 X X Pteropus hypomelanus 1 X Rousettus lindui ? 4 X Chironax melanocephalus 40 X X X X X Megaderma spasma 3 X X Hipposideros diadema 2 X Myotis adversus 6 X Rhinolophus celebensis 6 X X X Rhinolophus sp 1 X Pipistrellus javanicus 4 X

Total 3118

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I 180

Appendix VI : List of Rat species captured in the survey list by vegetation type

Spesies # captured Monsoon Degraded Lowland Lowland Forest Mixed Garden Marsh ForestSwamp Lower Montane Moist Lower Montane Montane Upper Montane Cloud Forest Rattus hoffmanni 46 X X X X X X X X Rattus tanezumi 1 X Rattus exulans 12 X X X X X X Maxomys hellwaldii 18 X X Bunomys prolatus 31 X X X X Rattus marmosurus 34 X X X X X X Rattus xanthurus 15 X X X X X X X Bunomys chrysocomus 23 X X X X X X X Taeromys arcuatus 3 X X Paruromys dominator 23 X X X X X X Maxomys musschenbroekii 2 X X Taeromys celebensis 19 X X X X X X Taeromys callitrichus 1 X Bunomys fratrorum 5 X X X Taeromys hamatus 2 X X Bunomys heinrichi 4 X X Bunomys penitus 15 X X X X Taeromys sp 1 X Margaretamys elegans 2 X Bunomys coelestis 3 X X Taeromys punicans 2 X X Melasmothrix rhinogradoides 1 X

Margaretamys beccarii 2 X Lenomys meyeri 1 X Maxomys wattsi 2 X Melasmothrix naso 1 X

TOTAL 271

Draft Management Plan-Lore Lindu National Park Volume-I