ISSN 1027-2992 I Special Issue I N° 8 | SPRING 2014 Non-CATPanthera cats in newsSouth-east Asia 02
CATnews is the newsletter of the Cat Specialist Group, a component Editors: Christine & Urs Breitenmoser of the Species Survival Commission SSC of the International Union Co-chairs IUCN/SSC for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It is published twice a year, and is Cat Specialist Group available to members and the Friends of the Cat Group. KORA, Thunstrasse 31, 3074 Muri, Switzerland For joining the Friends of the Cat Group please contact Tel ++41(31) 951 90 20 Christine Breitenmoser at [email protected] Fax ++41(31) 951 90 40
This Special Issue of CATnews has been produced with support Cover Photo: Non-Panthera cats of South-east Asia: from the Taiwan Council of Agriculture’s Forestry Bureau, Zoo Leipzig and From top centre clock-wise the Wild Cat Club. jungle cat (Photo K. Shekhar) clouded leopard (WCS Thailand Prg) Design: barbara surber, werk’sdesign gmbh fishing cat (P. Cutter) Layout: Christine Breitenmoser, Jonas Bach leopard cat (WCS Malaysia Prg) Print: Stämpfli Publikationen AG, Bern, Switzerland Asiatic golden cat (WCS Malaysia Prg) marbled cat (K. Jenks) ISSN 1027-2992 © IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group
The designation of the geographical entities in this publication, and the representation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
CATnews Special Issue 8 Spring 2014 original contribution
Naruemon Tantipisanuh1*, Wanlop Chutipong1, Dusit Ngoprasert1, Antony J. Thailand and discuss their conservation and Lynam2, Robert Steinmetz3, Ronglarp Sukmasuang4, Kate E. Jenks5,6, research needs (Chutipong et al. 2010). The Lon I. Grassman, Jr.7, Passanan Cutter8, Shumpei Kitamura9, Megan C. Baker6, review period is between January 1996 and William McShea6, Naris Bhumpakphan4, George A. Gale1 and David H. Reed10 August 2009 inclusive, although reports of exceptional interest from up to May 2011 Recent distribution records, are also included. All individuals working in government agencies, academic institutions threats and conservation prio- and international NGOs, known to have under- taken extensive camera-trapping in Thailand rities of small cats in Thailand in this period, were contacted; some were not able to attend or otherwise join in the record Although small cats are presumed important as mesopredators in mammalian food collation process. As far as we know, those chains, they have been largely ignored by biodiversity assessments of Thailand’s pro- who did not attend the workshop have con- tected areas. In November 2009, a workshop involving regional specialists and parti- ducted surveys in the same areas as those cipants from local universities, conservation organizations and government agencies that we have reported here. However, there was convened to assess the current status and distribution of small carnivores. In this are significant parts of Thailand, where, from paper, we review the small cat by-catch from 24 camera-trap surveys primarily target- our knowledge, no camera-trap surveys have ing tigers Panthera tigris and other large mammals, two radio-telemetry studies, and a been conducted e.g. northern and the central small number of direct sightings from 16 protected areas across Thailand. These data plain of Thailand. We considered the current were collected between 1996 and 2011 and form the most current available informa- threats for all small carnivores and discussed tion on distribution and threats for small cats in the country. A total of seven small to the possible research and conservation needs medium cat species have been recorded in Thailand. No cat species is restricted to for highly threatened species. This compilati- Thailand and while some (leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis, mainland clouded on covers all Thai cat species except tiger and leopard Neofelis nebulosa, Asiatic golden cat Catopuma temminckii and marbled cat leopard Panthera pardus whose statuses are Pardofelis marmorata) are evidently widespread across the country where habitat is treated elsewhere (Lynam et al. 2001, Lynam available, abundance and ranging patterns in the recorded sites are poorly under- et al. 2006, Ngoprasert et al. 2007, Simcharo- stood. Fishing cat Prionailurus viverrinus, jungle cat Felis chaus and flat-headed cat en et al. 2007, Simcharoen et al. 2008, Stein- 36 Prionailurus planiceps are each known from few Thai records and localities, and metz et al. 2009, Lynam 2010 and Walston et populations may be particularly threatened due to persecution, and loss and degra- al. 2010). dation of habitat. Small and medium cats in general may be persecuted but seldom appear in wildlife trade inside Thailand with the exception of the clouded leopard. A Methods thorough review of Thai historical records of small cats, to look for patterns of range Study areas contraction and habitat use, is needed, with a focus on those species which have not Thailand comprises 513,115 km2 of land been widely found today (fishing cat, flat-headed cat and jungle cat). between latitudes 5°37’′N and 20°30′N’ (ca.1,500 km north - south), ranging in eleva- Thailand is part of the range of many main- have been almost completely lost (Woodruff tion from sea level to 2,565 m. Climate varies land Southeast Asian carnivore species (Cor- 1990). between areas from a long, harsh dry sea- bet & Hill 1992). Most of the country falls in Aside from a few dedicated efforts to eluci- son, to those with only a short, dry season, the Indochinese devision of the Indochinese date their distribution and abundance (Rabi- and all intervening stages. Most land areas sub-region. Sundaic and Indochinese faunas nowitz 1990, 1991, Kanchanasaka 2001a, b), were forested until the advent of commercial differ distinctly and there is a high latitudinal small carnivores (including the smaller cat forestry after 1897 (Usher 2009). Terrestrial species turnover. Some Sundaic influences species) have largely been ignored by recent wildlife habitats can be divided into seasonal extend north to about 15-16°N, while some biodiversity assessments although they are evergreen forest, mixed deciduous forest, de- Indochinese species occur south through presumed to be important as mesopredators ciduous dipterocarp forest, scrub, wetlands Thailand into Malaysia, with many species in mammalian food chains due to their depen- (of many types) and agricultural land. These having range boundaries in the peninsula dence on small mammalian prey (Lekagul & main habitat types vary with elevation, al- (Woodruff & Turner 2009). Over the last 50 McNeely 1988, Sunquist & Sunquist 2002). though the extent to which mammals do so in years, Thailand has seen major forest con- However, due to increasing conservation in- Thailand is surprisingly poorly known (Stein- version which continues today though at si- terest, intensive surveys using camera-traps metz et al. 2008). There are no strictly marine gnificantly reduced rates (FAO 2010). Based have been conducted for tigers across suita- species of small carnivore in Thailand, so ma- on 2007 data, >90% of lowland areas (0-200 ble remaining habitats within Thailand and rine (as distinct from littoral) habitats are not m) are dominated by agriculture (mostly rice these and other surveys have incidentally considered here. fields, fruit, rubber and oil palm plantations), produced positively identifiable records of Most areas of natural and semi-natural vege- settlements and industry. Most of remaining small cats and other carnivores. tation lie within the boundaries of 426 pro- lowland forest habitats (>90%) are smaller A meeting was held in Bangkok on 26-27 tected areas (see the map of Thailand’s pro- than two square kilometres (N. Tantipisanuh, November 2009 to collate records of small tected areas in the Supporting Online Materi- unpubl. data). Lowland rainforest, freshwater carnivores (defined there as all species in al), with the coverage skewed towards higher swamp forest and primary mangrove forest the Order Carnivora typically under 15 kg) in elevations and not evenly spread across its
CATnews Special Issue 8 Spring 2014 small cats in Thailand regions (Tantipisanuh & Gale 2013). These protected areas collectively cover 103,810 km2 (ca. 20%) of Thailand. While there are some globally outstanding large protected area complexes, most notably the Western Forest Complex of 17 protected areas total- ling 18,000 km2 (Prayurasiddhi et al. 1999, Simcharoen et al. 2007), many other protected areas are small (more than 65% are less than 200 km2), feature proportionately larger areas of disturbed habitats around their perimeters, and are isolated from other natural habitats. Nine organisations conducted surveys in 16 of the larger protected areas chosen from the suite of available habitats (Fig. 1). There was no available survey data from the north and the central plain at the time of the workshop.
Camera-trap survey data Before the workshop, a questionnaire was sent to researchers conducting camera-trap surveys in Thailand, asking for camera-trap re- cords of all carnivores except bears, and basic information about the surveys which genera- ted them. Details of camera trapping surveys, including species present, survey sites, survey period, survey effort (number of camera-trap- nights), number of camera locations, survey 37 coverage (km2), habitat types, and their ele- vation range at each survey site, were sought (Supporting Online Material SOM Table T1). Survey coverage was estimated by creating minimum convex polygons around the outer- most camera locations. For sites with multi- year surveys we calculated and reported sur- vey coverage per year. We obtained elevation at each camera-trap location from the ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model (http://www. Fig. 1. Location of 16 protected areas in Thailand where the camera-trap data were ga- ersdac.or.jp) with the purported accuracy 7-14 thered (circles) and 13 additional areas where cat records are given in the text (squares). m, with the majority of locations below 1,000 (1) Bang Lang National Park NP, (2) Hala-Bala Wildlife Sanctuary WS, (3) Huai Kha Khaeng m (the original ASTER GDEM data is the pro- WS, (4) Kaeng Krachan NP, (5) Khao Ang Rue Nai WS, (6) Khao Sok NP, (7) Khao Yai NP, (8) perty of METI and NASA). Khlong Saeng WS, (9) Kuiburi NP, (10) Maenam Pachi WS, (11) Phu Khieo WS, (12) Khao We did not quantify area-specific survey- Sam Roi Yod NP, (13) Ta Phraya NP, (14) Thale Noi Non-hunting Area, (15) Thap Lan NP, effort to a precise single figure due to the (16) Thung Yai Naresuan WS – West, (17) Khao Luang NP, (18) Khao Nan NP, (19) Phu Kra- large variation between sites in study design dueng NP, (20) Doi Chiang Dao WS, (21) Salawin WS, (22) Lum Nam Pai-Salawin Forest as well as in numerous other characteristics. Complex (hereafter FC), (23) Phu Khieo-Nam Nao FC, (24) Khao Luang FC, (25) Ratch- The surveys varied widely in other essenti- buri Province, (26) Phetchburi Province, (27) Pru Toh Daeng swamp forest, (28) Su-ngai al parameters affecting species caught and Padi District, (29) Khao Prathub Chang Wildlife Breeding Centre. Regions on the map: their capture probability, such as height abo- N=North, NE=Northeast, W=West, C=Central, E=East and S=South. ve ground of the camera-traps, use of baits and lures, microhabitats selected for camera the study areas, nearly all camera-trap ef- Because of the large variation between sur- trap placement (such as on/off trails, besi- fort was in evergreen rather than deciduous vey areas in camera-trap survey effort and de/away from surface water), duration of forest, and in forests rather than scrub or methods, no between-survey area analyses camera-trapping at each position, model of grasslands. However, there were two sur- were conducted: each of the many differen- camera-traps used, and their age/reliability. veys targeting fishing cat Prionailurus viver- ces that would be found might reflect diffe- In part, this reflects the varying objectives of rinus in wetland habitats. Average camera rences in survey methods rather than any- the different surveys and also the personal trap spacing was 1.37 ± SE 0.24 km (range thing biologically meaningful. The results are choice of individual researchers. In nearly all 0.5-2.8 km). therefore presented on a species-by-species
Non-Panthera cats in South-east Asia Tantipisanuh et al.
a b c
Fig. 2. Distribution maps of seven cat species: (a) leopard cat, (b) fishing cat, (c) flat-headed cat and jungle cat; next page: (d) Asiatic golden cat, (e) marbled cat, and (f) clouded leopard. The sources of the records were separated into 3 groups: (1) camera-trap only, (2) other sources, and (3) both camera-trap and other sources.
basis and while records of a given species at photograph for validation were removed Other records a given survey area confirm its presence, the from the dataset. Non-validated photographs In addition to records obtained during the 38 lack of records does not confirm its absence. for species known to be present (by other workshop, other relevant records derived Camera-trap photographs of small cats were available photographs) in that survey area at from Journal of Wildlife in Thailand (Facul- reviewed for identification (n=219) by eight that time were retained. ty of Forestry, Kasetsart University) and se- surveyors, including several from outside cond-hand reports (Department of National Thailand but with extensive regional experi- Additional records from workshop Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation) were ence. This review found that the overall re- Records mentioned in the workshop with no included only in exceptional cases after ca- liability of identifications was high (96.8%), specimen or photograph available for third- reful consideration because the reliability of suggesting that field surveyors motivated party validation have been included only such reports can rarely be determined. enough to participate in such a collaborative after careful consideration. Direct sighting process are also careful in their identifica- records have been included only for obser- Results tions of small cats. Nonetheless, records that vers demonstrably familiar with the species There are five species of cats with camera would have been of particular significance of Thailand (either through extensive exami- trap records and among these, three species (notably any suggesting occurrence of a spe- nation of museum skin specimens or camera- (leopard cat, Asiatic golden cat and clouded cies at a protected area) with no available trapping). leopard) occurred in over 50% of the 16 sites from which camera-trap survey data were available (SOM T1). When we incorporated the additional (non-camera trap) records, leopard cat (75% of sites), Asiatic golden cat (63%), clouded leopard (56%) and marbled cat (50%) were the most widely distributed in the surveyed sites. Fishing cat was much less widespread even though it was the sur- vey target at several sites (25% of survey target sites had presence); there were no records clearly attributable to fishing cat at any of the ‘non-target’ sites.
Leopard cat Records from workshop: Leopard cats are wi- Fig. 3. Leopard cat pictured in Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary on 4.12.2007 (Pho- dely distributed in Thailand, being recorded to W. Chutipong). by the camera-traps in 11 out of 16 sites (Fig.
CATnews Special Issue 8 Spring 2014 smaller cats in Thailand
d e f
2a). In addition, there were direct sightings mixed deciduous forest with distance to ne- the observation was made, failed to detect at Khao Sam Roi Yod National Park (P. Cutter, arest water body of 1.9 km. However, a re- the species (SOM T1) so the validity of the unpubl. data; Fig. 1). Leopard cats were found habilitated fishing cat was released near the identification is considered questionable. A in various habitat types, both forest and non- survey area from a wildlife rescue centre in record of fishing cat from May 2007 was forest and over a wide elevational range (96 Phetchburi (E. Wieks, pers. comm.; Fig. 1) and reported from Pattani Province in southern m in Khao Ang Rue Nai WS to 1,345 m in so the wild origin of the camera-trapped cat Thailand (www.fishing-cat.wild-cat.org). 39 Huai Kha Khaeng WS; SOM T1). is questionable. Two cats were caught in a patchy mangrove Other records: There are camera-trap records Other records: Surveys at Khlong Saeng and forest near Bangplamor Village, 15 minutes from Khlong Saeng Wildlife Sanctuary (Kan- Maenam Pachi Wildlife Sanctuaries (Fig. drive from the Pattani Campus of Prince chanasaka 2001a) but they were not avail- 1; using similar methods to those at Khao Songkla University; one cat died in captivity able for confirmation, and putative direct Sam Roi Yod) did not reveal evidence of and the other was released eventually (W. sightings at Khao Luang National Park and fishing cats (Cutter & Cutter 2009). A sight- Karntanut, pers. comm.). Khao Nan National Park (N. Bhumpakphan, ing reported as a fishing cat from Khlong E unpubl. data; Fig. 1, 2a). Tow, 4 km west of the Khao Yai National Flat-headed cat Park Headquarters, in seasonal evergreen Records from workshop: Flat-headed cat was Fishing cat forest by T. Charoendong in 2000 (Lynam not camera trapped in any of the 16 sites. Records from workshop: Records of fishing et al. 2006) remains unconfirmed. Camera This cat is very rarely recorded in Thailand, cat came from three sites (Fig. 2b). Khao Sam trapping in previous and subsequent years, at least in part because its distribution in the Roi Yod National Park is believed to be the including in and around the location where country is limited to the extreme south. site with the largest remaining population (P. Cutter, unpubl. data; Fig. 1). More than 20 individuals were identified from camera trap photographs and live-captures in the area. Camera trap evidence suggests occurrence in nearby wetlands adjacent to the south of Khao Sam Roi Yod National Park. Fishing cats in Khao Sam Roi Yod National Park were usu- ally found in rice fields, where diverse prey are available, and in secondary mangrove fo- rest. They appeared to be tolerant of human presence. Evidence suggests that the fishing cat may restrict its range to wetland habi- tat of lowland areas (<300 m; Cutter 2009). A camera trap record from Kaeng Krachan National Park (Phetchburi Province) in 2002 (Fig. 1) came from a camera set at 336 m in Fig. 4. Fishing cat pictured in Thale Noi Non-Hunting Area on 15. 2.2007 (Photo P. Cutter).
Non-Panthera cats in South-east Asia Tantipisanuh et al.
Marbled cat compiled in Duckworth et al. (2005); a compa- Records from workshop: Marbled cat was nion review for Thailand is warranted. Leka- camera-trapped in six of the 16 sites (Fig. gul & McNeely (1988) suggested the species 2e). A direct sighting was reported from the was common throughout Thailand including Khao Sok National Park (A. Lynam, unpubl. the northern parts, at the time of writing data; Fig. 1). One camera-trap record in this their book. Our survey data lacked coverage study came from the edge of secondary forest from northern Thailand, so we cannot confirm in Kaeng Krachan National Park (Ngoprasert whether this is still true. & Lynam 2002; Fig. 1). In Phu Khieo Wild- life Sanctuary, one female marbled cat was Discussion radio tagged and its ranging pattern studied Given the limited survey effort (less than 1,000 (Grassman et al. 2005; Fig. 1). Records of trap-nights) and/or spatial coverage (less than marbled cats came from elevations ranging three to four home ranges) at seven of the 16 from 95-1,097 m. sites (SOM T1), and that leopard cats, Asiatic Other records: The species was reported from golden cats, clouded leopards and marbled camera trap surveys in Khlong Saeng Wildlife cats were still found at more than 50% of sites Sanctuary (Kanchanasaka 2001a; Fig. 1), but suggests that they are widespread within the the records were not available for confirma- larger protected areas of Thailand. In contrast, Fig. 5. Asiatic golden cat pictured in tion. there were no camera-trap records of jungle Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary on cat or flat-headed cat despite our compila- 24.12.2011 (Photo W. Chutipong). Clouded leopard tion of camera trap records across a 15-year Records from workshop: Clouded leopards period, presumably in part because very li- Other records: Kanchanasaka (1995) repor- were confirmed in nine of the 16 sites (Fig. mited sampling was done in open deciduous ted the flat-headed cat from Pru Toh Daeng 2f). All records of clouded leopards came from forest or scrub, or peat and/or swamp areas, swamp forest (Fig. 2c). Kanchanasaka’s sur- natural forest, but survey efforts in disturbed the respective presumed favoured habitats vey team saw the cat in the evening at two habitats were too limited to speculate on the for these species. Fishing cats, except for the locations: (1) near the Su-ngai Padi River and extent to which the species uses them. Clou- questionable records in Kaeng Krachan and 40 (2) an area between Melaleuca forest and ded leopards were found in a wide altitudinal Khao Yai National Parks (Fig. 1), were found swamp forest near Su-ngai Padi II road. In range (from 90 m in Khao Ang Rue Nai Wild- only in sites where surveys specifically target- 2005, two flat-headed cats were confiscated life Sanctuary to 1,253 m in Huai Kha Khaeng ed them (Khao Sam Roi Yod National Park and from wildlife traffickers and brought to the Wildlife Sanctuary; SOM T1), suggesting that Thale Noi Non-hunting Area; Fig. 1). Specific Khao Prathub Chang Wildlife Breeding Cen- elevation is not a limiting factor for this spe- surveys over a wider range of sites outside the tre where they were looked after (Fig. 1). They cies’ distribution, at least in Thailand. protected areas surveyed in this study might were suspected of being smuggled from Pen- Other records: This cat species was documen- be necessary to find evidence of presence of insular Malaysia for the pet trade (Manager ted by camera-traps in Khlong Saeng Wildlife these three rare species. On the basis of these Online 2005). Sanctuary (Kanchanasaka 2001a) and Kaeng results, no strong conclusions can be made on Krachan National Park (Tanhikorn et al. 2008), their national status. However, bearing in mind Asiatic golden cat but photos were not available for confirmati- the rarity with which each appears in captivity Records from workshop: Asiatic golden cat on (Fig. 1). or trade, or are found by other incidental ways was recorded in nine of the 16 sites (Fig. 2d). (road-kill, birdwatcher sightings, etc.), it is li- In other parts of Thailand, there were direct Jungle cat kely that none is common in the country and sightings at Khao Sok National Park in 1996 Records from workshop: There were no came- all may be very rare and therefore at risk of (A. Lynam, unpubl. data; Fig. 1). Asiatic golden ra trap records of jungle cat and overall there national extinction. This is especially true if cats were recorded in various forest types are very few recent records in Thailand. they occur primarily outside protected areas both primary and secondary, and across a Other records: One direct sighting came from and thereby receive little or no active protec- wide range of elevations (from 144 m in Khao Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary - tion against poaching or habitat disturbance or Ang Rue Nai Wildlife Sanctuary to 1,310 m in West (Steinmetz & Mather 1996; Fig. 2c) in conversion. Khao Yai National Park; SOM T1), suggesting a sharp transition between semi-evergreen The surveys collated here were mostly aimed that low to mid-elevations were not a limiting forest on level limestone and drier bamboo- at mammals larger than these cats and came- factor to the occurrence of this species. dominated mixed deciduous forest at ca. 400 ras were set mainly along forest roads and Other records: Camera trap records from m, ca. 10 – 12 km from a village (Duckworth large trails, especially those actively used by Khlong Saeng Wildlife Sanctuary were re- et al. 2005). Four specimens of jungle cat re- tigers. Smaller carnivores might avoid such ported by Kanchanasaka (2001a) but were ceived in 1972 (two from Ratchburi, one from pathways due to their habitual use by larger not available for confirmation (Fig. 1). In Phetchburi and one from a market; Fig. 1) are carnivores (Di Bitetti et al. 2006), or people other parts of Thailand, there were putative lodged at the Thailand Institute of Scientific in the protected areas with large number of direct sightings at Phu Kradueng National and Technological Research TISTR (Duck- visitors and/or poachers. Larger carnivores Park in 1983 (N. Bhumpakphan, unpubl. data; worth et al. 2005). Historical records of jungle sometimes kill small carnivores; for example Fig. 1). cats in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam were leopard predation on leopard cat was recorded
CATnews Special Issue 8 Spring 2014 smaller cats in Thailand in Kaeng Krachan National Park (Grassman 1997; Fig. 1) although it is unclear how regular this behaviour is. Therefore, surveyors of small cats should consider issues of trail avoidance by some small carnivores due to higher use of such trails by larger carnivores. The natural history of each species remains too poorly known to prescribe optimal survey techniques. As long as this is true, assessments of the small cat community composition needs came- ra traps to be deployed across a wide variety of habitats (including degraded areas) and inclu- de as many microhabitats as possible. Leopard cat: The absence of leopard cat from four study sites (SOM T1) was possibly due to the low survey effort (less than 1,000 trap- Fig. 6. Clouded leopard pictured in Ta Phraya National Park on 31.08.1998 (Photo WCS nights) and coverage (less than three to four Thailand). home ranges; Maffei & Noss 2008, Tobler et al. 2008). However, this is possibly not Salawin Wildlife Sanctuaries, and also the Clouded leopard: Failure to detect clouded the case for Bang Lang (SOM T1) where the Khao Luang Forest Complex in southern Thai- leopards in Huai Kha Khaeng (Fig. 1) in re- survey detected the presence of clouded leo- land (Fig. 1) where its presence has been sug- peat surveys 10 years after their presence pard (4 photographs) despite the low survey gested but unconfirmed (Nowell & Jackson was confirmed, requires further considera- effort and coverage. The absence of leopard 1996). Camera trap surveys at Khlong Saeng tion (SOM T1). It is likely that the species cat from the survey at Bang Lang could have in 2012 (L. Gibson, unpubl. data) confirmed was absent in the second survey due to a several explanations. There is a strong pos- the species presence there. combination of differing density, spatial co- sibility that it is due to the low abundance Flat-headed cat: Degradation/alteration of verage, and survey effort compared with the and relatively low intensity of trapping effort Pru Toh Daeng swamp forest (Fig. 1) could first survey rather than changes in status. At leading to the species being missed at Bang significantly impact the survival of the flat- Ta Phraya, surveys in 1998 recorded multiple 41 Lang (<700 trap-nights). A trapping effort at headed cat population in Thailand. A recent individual clouded leopards but in 2012 only Hala Bala with just over 1,000 trap-nights habitat model for this species across the a single camera-trap set far (>10 km) from also failed to detect leopard cats but a la- entire species range predicted Pru Toh Da- the forest edge detected clouded leopard (M. ter survey with over 10,000 trap-nights did eng swamp forest to be the last probable vi- Baker, unpubl. data; Fig. 1). As the latter sur- record the species (SOM T1). Moreover, the able habitat for flat-headed cats in Thailand vey covered a wider sampling area and used Bang Lang and earlier Hala Bala surveys tar- (Wilting et al. 2010). more camera-traps, it is likely this reflects a geted tigers and trap locations were placed Marbled cat: The lack of camera trap re- real contraction in range for the species, or a where tiger signs were detected; these lo- cords of marbled cat may not be an actual reduction in density. The location of the ca- cations may be avoided by leopard cats. Le- reflection of local status, but rather a result mera-trap that detected the animal is consis- opard cats were also missing from surveys of semi-arboreal behaviour. A study in Bor- tent with distribution models from Khao Yai that employed the same tiger-optimized neo, where both camera-trap and spotlight- suggesting that clouded leopards are more survey design and camera-trap placement ing surveys were employed, encountered likely to occur away from the forest edges at Temenggor and Bintang Hijau in northern marbled cats by spotlighting survey twice, (Ngoprasert et al. 2012). Malaysia (Lynam et al. 2007). Camera trap but the cat was never detected by camera- Jungle cat: The paucity of jungle cat records surveys at Khlong Saeng in 2012 (L. Gib- trapping (Mohamed et al. 2009), suggesting in this study is not a strong indication that son, unpubl. data) confirmed the species partly arboreal behaviour may partly explain the species is rare, since edge/non-forest presence there. the low camera trap success rates. Records habitats which may support the species were Asiatic golden cat: Historical records sugge- of marbled cat in this study came from ele- not adequately surveyed. However, it is con- sted a wide distribution for the Asiatic golden vations below 1,100 m; however, there are sistent with the almost complete dearth of cat in Thailand (Lekagul & McNeely 1988). records of these cats in Lao PDR up to at recent records in Thailand (e.g. Graham & The distribution map produced from these re- least 1,900 m (Johnson et al. 2009), and Round 1994). Given the ongoing paucity of re- cords as well as our work is probably incom- from the Himalayan region up to 3,000 m cords, a complete review is urgently needed plete mainly due to limitations in coverage (Sunquist & Sunquist 2002). This suggests to identify their possible habitats in Thailand. of the surveys and the relatively low survey that the distribution of the marbled cat is Based on a complete review by Duckworth effort (based on number of trap-nights). The- not limited by elevation in other parts of et al. (2005) and historical distribution from refore, more camera-trap surveys should be its range and that it is simply overlooked in Lekagul & McNeely (1988), future surveys conducted, in particular, in the forest areas in higher-altitude surveys in Thailand. Came- should focus on dry forest (e.g. dry diptero- northern Thailand such as the Lum Nam Pai- ra trap surveys at Khlong Saeng in 2012 (L. carp forest, mixed deciduous forest) in north Salawin Forest Complex, the Phu Khieo-Nam Gibson, unpubl. data) confirmed the species and northeast Thailand (e.g. Lum Nam Pai- Nao Forest Complex, Doi Chiang Dao and presence there. Salawin Forest Complex, Phu Khieo-Nam
Non-Panthera cats in South-east Asia Tantipisanuh et al.
Nao Forest Complex, Fig. 1). However, forest This conflicting evidence suggests that (1) cantly share distribution with larger cat spe- areas in northern Thailand have been heavily meat trade for wild cats in Thailand may not cies which are subjects of intensive survey fragmented and ground-dwelling mammals be locally significant because cat meat is re- and conservation efforts inside several of the over hunted (Pattanavibool & Dearden 2002). latively less desirable (W. Chutipong, pers. larger protected areas. Therefore unless de- This is similar to the situation in some Lao obs.), (2) trade found along borders may stem dicated surveys and conservation measures protected areas (Coudrat et al. 2014, this from neighbouring countries, (3) trade in wild are attempted, these species are unlikely to issue) and it is likely that small and medium cats within the country e.g., pelt trade, if any, be recorded or conserved, and so might dis- cat species at best might occur at very low was overlooked by the two surveys as they appear without our knowledge. Using a pre- densities there. were conducted in towns – far from border cautionary view, these three species should where most of trades usually occur, and (4) be considered to be at risk of national-level Possible threats to small cats the absence of wild cat meat trade around extinction in Thailand. Rapid economic development over the last 40 the two forest complexes may be an indicator In general, the largest blocks of secondary years (National Economic and Social Deve- of critically low population status. forests, wetlands, shrub and non-forest areas lopment Board 2011) has brought paved roads Persecution may be a more serious threat to that lie outside protected areas amid the lo- to nearly all parts of the country and this, in some species than others, especially fishing west human population densities with histo- combination with the long land borders with cats which are frequently killed (but rarely rical and recent confirmed records should be Malaysia, Myanmar, Lao PDR and Cambodia, reported) by villagers when they prey on fish intensively surveyed to elucidate the status provides high connectivity for the regional and chickens (P. Cutter, unpubl. data). and distribution of fishing cat, flat-headed wildlife markets (Shepherd & Nijman 2008a, Due to a relatively aggressive management cat and jungle cat. In addition, similar habitat Nijman 2010). Domestic legislation protects of forest boundaries around the edges of Thai types believed to be suitable for these spe- all wildlife occurring inside protected areas parks and sanctuaries (Albers & Grinspoon cies should be targeted in the hopes of fin- including cats (Ministry of Natural Resour- 1997), forest encroachment rates are gene- ding additional breeding populations worthy ces and Environment 2003). While some rally lower than in some neighbouring count- of protection. These include wetland habitats protected areas are now evolving effective ries (Sodhi et al. 2010). Felid responses to the of Inner Gulf of Thailand for fishing cat, and protection for high-trade-value species such impacts from degradation of existing habitats peat swamp forests in peninsular Thailand as tiger (Simcharoen et al. 2007, Steinmetz inside protected areas, especially historical for flat-headed cats (Wilting et al. 2010). et al. 2009, 2010), most are not, and many logging practices, and land-use change are Individuals of these three species found in 42 species are still heavily and illegally hunted poorly understood. Therefore, establishing wildlife rescue centres and captive breeding throughout most of their Thai range (Lynam appropriate practices for species conserva- centres, and road kills should be the subject 1999, Tungittiplakorn & Dearden 2002, Lynam tion is difficult. However, the range of sites of investigation to determine their origin. This et al. 2005, 2006, Brodie et al. 2009). There from which the four widespread smaller cats may lead to the discovery of sites still sup- is an enormous regional trade in wildlife and were recorded gives no suggestion that cur- porting them, which could then be surveyed wildlife products, including various small car- rent habitat conditions are threatening the intensively to determine population status. nivores, to supply the luxury restaurant trade survival of any of them. For these three species, specimens such as in China and Vietnam (Bell et al. 2004, Lau et animals killed for retribution, hunted/traded al. 2010, Xu & Compton 2010). Due to a mix of Conservation priorities specimens of known locality warrant publi- inconsistent legal policies, lack of law enfor- A thorough review of Thai historical records cation and wherever possible, photographic cement, and poorly trained or inadequately of small cats, to study patterns of range con- documentation should be opportunistically funded staff, Thailand has been repeatedly traction and habitat use, with a focus on those collected to add to the collection in the Thai- found to be a crucial node in the international species which cannot be widely found today land National Science Museum. wildlife trade (Nijman & Shepherd 2007, Nij- (fishing cat, flat-headed cat and jungle cat), Forest-dwelling species such as Asiatic gol- man 2010, Nijman & Shepherd 2010). Many is needed. Current information on occurrence den cat, marbled cat and clouded leopard are parts of larger cats (tiger, leopard), clouded and geographic distribution of small cats is potentially sensitive to the impacts of edge leopard and Asiatic golden cat (mostly skin lacking from the more disturbed areas in nor- effects, habitat degradation and forest en- and some meat, bone or other organs) are thern Thailand where at least one species, croachment. Assessments of their responses illegally sold at border markets, suggesting jungle cat – currently considered national should be carried out as these factors have threats to their populations in Thailand and critically endangered (Nabhitabhata & Chan- been found to be important influences on neighbouring Myanmar and Lao PDR (Sri- ard 2005), was formerly reportedly common the distribution and the extinction proneness kosamatara & Suteethorn 1994, Shepherd (Lekagul & McNeely 1988). Similarly, there of other Thai forest mammals (Lynam 1995, & Nijman 2008b, Oswell 2010). However, are only a few scattered records of small cats Ngoprasert et al. 2007). recent wildlife meat trade surveys in towns from the central plains and the Gulf of Thai- National funding agencies (e.g. National Re- and villages near Kuiburi National Park (Fig. land coastline. These gaps are serious becau- search Council of Thailand, National Science 1) revealed that the only small carnivores in se this implies that for fishing cat, which may and Technology Development Agency) should the meat trade were palm civets (Paradoxu- be among the most threatened cats in tropical be encouraged to fund such countrywide in- rinae) (R. Steinmetz, unpubl. data). Similar Asia and whose status remains poorly known, vestigations for small cats, and such investi- surveys conducted around the Western Fo- it is not clear what conservation management gations should be a part of wildlife research rest Complex (Fig. 1) also found no cases of is needed. In addition, jungle cat, fishing cat programmes undertaken by relevant govern- small cats (A. Pattanavibool, pers. comm.). and flat-headed cat do not seem to signifi- ment agencies such as the Department of
CATnews Special Issue 8 Spring 2014 smaller cats in Thailand
National Parks, Wildlife and Plants Conser- Cutter P. 2009. Camera Trapping and Conservati- Lynam A. J. 1999. Transboundary expedition on vation (DNP). on Status Assessment of Fishing Cats at Khao Thai-Malaysia border reveals elephant and Su- Sam Roi Yod National Park, Thailand and matran rhinoceros populations threatened by Acknowledgements Surrounding Areas. Fishing Cat Research and poaching. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam This paper is dedicated to the memory of JoGayle Conservation Project. http://www.rufford.org/ Society 47, 23-35. Howard and David Reed. We wish to thank the files/SM_070209 Fishing Cat Project Report Lynam A. J. 2010. Securing a future for wild In- Clouded Leopard Project, TRF/BIOTEC Special 5 - KSRY Feb2009_Eng.pdf dochinese tigers: Transforming tiger vacuums Program for Biodiversity Research and Training Cutter P. & Cutter P. 2009. Recent sightings of fis- into tiger source sites. Integrative Zoology 5, Thailand, Kasetsart University, and the Smithso- hing cats in Thailand. Cat News 51, 12-13. 324-334. nian Conservation Biology Institute for providing Di Bitetti M. S., Paviolo A. & Angelo C. D. 2006. Lynam A. J., Kreetiyutanont K. & Mather R. 2001. funding for the initial conference that brought all Density, habitat use and activity patterns of Conservation status and distribution of the In- the authors together to discuss collaboration. S. ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the Atlantic Fo- dochinese Tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti) and Kitamura was funded by the Mahidol University rest of Misiones, Argentina. Journal of Zoology other large mammals in a forest complex in Government Research Grant, the National Center 270, 153-163. northeastern Thailand. Natural History Bulletin for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, the Duckworth J. W., Poole C. M., Tizard R. J., Walston of the Siam Society 49, 61–75. Hornbill Research Foundation, and a JSPS Re- J. L. & Timmins R. J. 2005. The Jungle Cat Felis Lynam A. J., Laidlaw R., Noordin W. S. W., Elagu- search Fellowship. W. Chutipong and D. Ngopra- chaus in Indochina: a threatened population of pillay S. & Bennett E. L. 2007. Assessing the sert were funded by the TRF/BIOTEC Special Pro- a widespread and adaptable species. Biodiver- conservation status of the tiger Panthera tigris gram for Biodiversity Research and Training grant sity and Conservation 14, 1263-1280. at priority sites in Peninsular Malaysia. Oryx BRT-R353008 and BRT-R346001. We thank J. W. FAO 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 41, 454-462. Duckworth, A. Wilting and Than Zaw for their kind 2010: Country Report, Thailand. Lynam A. J., Maung M., Po S. H. T. & Duckworth assistance in identifying the carnivores in our data Graham M. & Round P. D. 1994. Thailand’s vanis- J. W. 2005. Recent records of Large-spotted set. We thank the Wildlife Conservation Society hing flora and fauna. Finance One, Bangkok. Civet Viverra megaspila from Thailand and My- Thailand, World Wide Fund for Nature – Thailand, Grassman Jr. L. I. 1997. Ecology and behavior of anmar. Small Carnivore Conservation 32, 8-11. and WildAid Thailand for allowing participants to four sympatric carnivore species (Mammalia: Lynam A. J., Round P. D. & Brockelman W. Y. 2006. use data collected under their auspices. We also Carnivora) in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Status of birds and large mammals in Thai- thank R. Phoonjampa, S. Tanasarnpaiboon and M. Thailand. M.Sc. thesis. Kasetsart University, land’s Dong Phayayen – Khao Yai Forest Com- Pliosungnoen for their assistance, and W. Karnta- Bangkok. plex. Biodiversity Research and Training (BRT) 43 nut for a valuable record of fishing cat. Grassman Jr. L. I., Tewes M. E., Silvy N. J. & Kree- Program and Wildlife Conservation Society, tiyutanont K. 2005. Ecology of three sympatric Bangkok, Thailand. References felids in a mixed evergreen forest in north-cen- Maffei L. & Noss A. J. 2008. How small is too Albers H. J. & Grinspoon E. 1997. A comparison tral Thailand. Journal of Mammalogy 86, 29-38. small? Camera trap survey areas and density of the enforcement of access restrictions bet- Johnson A., Vongkhamheng C. & Saithongdam T. estimates for Ocelots in the Bolivian Chaco. ween Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve (China) 2009. The diversity, status and conservation of Biotropica 40, 71-75. and Khao Yai National Park (Thailand). Environ- small carnivores in a montane tropical forest in Manager Online 2005. “The first flat-headed cat mental Conservation 24, 351-362. northern Laos. Oryx 43, 626-633. photograph”
Non-Panthera cats in South-east Asia Tantipisanuh et al.
Ngoprasert D., Lynam A. J. & Gale G. A. 2007. mate using photographic capture-recapture Northern Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of Human disturbance affects habitat use and sampling. Oryx 41, 447-453. the Siam Society 50, 57-73. behaviour of a tropical large carnivore in Ka- Simcharoen S., Barlow A. C. D., Simcharoen A. & Usher A. D. 2009. Thai Forestry: A Critical History. eng Krachan National Park, Thailand. Oryx 41, Smith J. L. D. 2008. Home range size and dayti- Silk-worm Books, Bangkok. 343-351. me habitat selection of leopards in Huai Kha Walston J., Karanth K. U. & Stokes E. J. 2010. Ngoprasert D., Lynam A. J., Sukmasuang R., Tanti- Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand. Biologi- Avoiding the Unthinkable: What Will it Cost to pisanuh N., Chutipong W., Steinmetz R., Jenks cal Conservation 141, 2242-2250. Prevent Tigers Becoming Extinct in the Wild? K. E., Gale G. A., Grassman Jr. L. I., Kitamura Sodhi N. S., Koh L. P., Clements R., Wanger T. C., Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. S., Howard J., Cutter P., Leimgruber P., Songsa- Hill J. K., Hamer K. C., Clough Y., Tscharntke Wilting A., Cord A., Hearn A. J., Hesse D., Mo- sen N. & Reed D. H. 2012. Occurrence of three T., Posa M. R. C. & Lee T. M. 2010. Conserving hamed A., Traeholdt C., Cheyne S. M., Sunarto felids across a network of protected areas in Southeast Asian forest biodiversity in human- S., Jayasilan M.-A., Ross J., Shapiro A. C., Se- Thailand: prey, intraguild, and habitat associa- modified landscapes. Biological Conservation bastian A., Dech S., Breitenmoser C., Sander- tions. Biotropica 44, 810-817. 143, 2375-2384. son J., Duckworth J. W. & Hofer H. 2010. Mo- Nijman V. 2010. An overview of international wild- Srikosamatara S. & Suteethorn V. 1994. Wildlife delling the Species Distribution of Flat-headed life trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity conservation along the Lao-Thai Border. Natu- Cats (Prionailurus planiceps), an Endangered and Conservation 19, 1101-1114. ral History Bulletin of the Siam Society 42, 3-21. South-East Asian Small Felid. PLoS One 5, Nijman V. & Shepherd C. 2007. Trade in non-native, Steinmetz R. & Mather R. 1996. Impact of Karen 1-18. CITES-listed, wildlife in Asia, as exemplified by villages on the fauna of Thung Yai Naresuan Woodruff D. S. 1990. Reviews: Endangered ani- the trade in freshwater turtles and tortoises Wildlife Sanctuary: a participatory research mals of Thailand by Stephen R. Humphrey and (Chelonidae) in Thailand. Contributions to Zoo- project. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam James R. Bain. Natural History Bulletin of the logy 76, 207-212. Society 44, 23-40. Siam Society 38, 163-177. Nijman V. & Shepherd C. 2010. The role of Asia in Steinmetz R., Chutipong W., Seuaturien N. & Woodruff D. S. & Turner L. M. 2009. The Indo- the global trade in CITES II-listed poison arrow Chirnsgaard E. 2008. Community structure of chinese-Sundaic zoogeographic transition: a frogs: hopping from Kazakhstan to Lebanon to large mammals in tropical montane and low- description and analysis of terrestrial mammal Thailand and beyond. Biodiversity and Conser- land forest in the Tenasserim-Dawna moun- species distributions. Journal of Biogeography vation 19, 1963-1970. tains, Thailand. Biotropica 40, 344-353. 36, 803-821. Nowell K. & Jackson P. 1996. Status Survey and Steinmetz R., Seuaturien N., Chutipong W. & Poon- Xu H. F. & Compton J. (Eds). 2010. The state of 44 Conservation Action Plan Wild Cats. IUCN nil B. 2009. The ecology and conservation of wildlife trade in China: information on the tra- Gland, Switzerland. Tigers and their prey in Kuiburi National Park, de in wild animals and plants in China 2008. Oswell A. H. 2010. The Big Cat Trade in Myanmar Thailand. WWF Thailand, and Department of TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Hong Kong. and Thailand. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia. National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservati- Pattanavibool A. & Dearden P. 2002. Fragmentati- on, Bangkok, Thailand. Supporting Online Material SOM Table T1 and on and Wildlife in Montane Evergreen Forests, Steinmetz R., Chutipong W., Seuaturien N., Chirns- Figure F1 are available at www.catsg.org/catnews Northern Thailand. Biological Conservation gaard E. & Khaengkhetkarn M. 2010. Populati- 107, 155-164. on recovery patterns of Southeast Asian ungu- 1 King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thon- Prayurasiddhi T., Chaiwatana S. & Naporn S. 1999. lates after poaching. Biological Conservation buri, Bangkok, Thailand Forest Complexes in Thailand. Royal Forest De- 143, 42-51. *
CATnews Special Issue 8 Spring 2014