Habitat, distribution and conservation

January 2002

Mette Munkhaus Olsen

University of Copenhagen

"Collaboration on Biodiversity between UMS and Danish Universities"

Sponsoredby DANCED (Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development) TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOSTUDYAim REW of OUnINE0stud RD 2

Stud y 4 Methodsy sites "".""""""""""""""".""""""."'" """"'."" 54 Results 6 Discussion 6 GENERAL BIOLOGY OF THE BANTENG 8 Systematics 8 Morphology 8 Physiology 9 Population structure 10 Behaviour 10 DISTRIBUnON 12 HABITAT USE AND PREFERENCES 14 Diet 14 Water 16 Minerals : "...""""""". 16 Forest Cover 17 Trails " 17 HABITAT MANAGEMENT 19 POPULA nON SIZE AND VlABJLITY 22 Size , , , "",." ,..",. 22 Inbreeding """"""""""'..'."'.""""'.""""""' 23 Life span ."...".'..'..."...'.."."."""""'."""""""""""""'.""'.."'.""""'..""""""'."."."""'... 23 Fertility '..."'.'..'.""""'."".""""""""""""" , : 23 Effective population size ' , 24 Sex ratio ",." ".",."."..."., "",.""., 24 MAJN THREATS 25 Habitat loss 25 Fragmentation """""'.."""""""""""""""""""'" 25 Corridors 25 Border areas , 26 Poaching , 26 THE BANTENG IN 28 RECOMMEND A nONS 32 Unawareness " 32 FURTHER STUDIES 34 A CKN 0 WLEDG EMENTS 34 REFERENCES 35 APPENDIX I 37 FOREWORD

continues to grow, natural resources are increasingly at risk of overexploitation, and natural

fully understood.

is possible through large expense, simply becauseno effort is being done, at the time when saving a sustainable population is still possible (Balmford et al., 1995). report is about one such species, namely the Banteng, also known as tembadau (Bos

javanicus ).

being paid muchattention from the public. We canall relateto the well-known domestic cattle, but only few people are aware that populations of wild cattle are in fact still to be found in the forests of South East Asia. However, if the banteng is to have any chance of surviving, it is of utmost importance, that people become more aware of it. It is the aim of this report to cast a light over the most important facts, making it easier for people to get a general idea of this unique species.

have just completed nine months of fieldwork in Sabah,, in which I have been focusing on the habitat uses ofbanteng. It is my experience, that even the local people are unaware of the status or even existence of this species. In Sabahthere is a long history of conservationists working on e.g. orang-utans, rhinos, or elephants,whereas my choice of focus, the banteng, is considered quite odd and often requires an explanation. As a student in Conservation Biology, I must say that considering the now threatenedstatus of the banteng,

2

'his combined with the lack of previous studies and references, I not only consider it an obvious choice, but a most neededone too.

The report is based on a literature review as well as on personal observations during my field studies. Unfortunately some referencesare poorly documented or hard to obtain and thus have not been included in this review. Although few in number, these missing references form a substantialpart of the total literature on banteng, as this is already limited. The information provided in this report should therefore not be seenas a comprehensive compilation of data, but as a review of the currently available data. Of the few previous studies on the ecology of the banteng, none have been focusing on the borneansubspecies; hence no references exist for this area. In this report I have therefore tried to outline the main aspectsof the banteng, in a way that makes them locally relevant and useful, regarding Borneo and especially Sabah.

Apart from outlining the general biology of the banteng, I have included a discussion on habitat use, population sizes and main threats, as these are important considerations in terms of conservation. Finally, I have summarisedthe current situation of the banteng in Sabahand provided recommendations for future managementand conservation.

My fieldwork was sponsoredby WWF Verdensnaturfonden/Novo Nordisk ("Biodiversitetslegatet"), DANCED ("Collaboration on Biodiversity betweenUniversiti Malaysia Sabahand Danish Universities") and the University of Copenhagen("Nord/Syd Rejsepulje for Specialestuderende").

3 STUD Y OUTLINE

Masters thesis. I am a student of Biology at the University of Copenhagen and have chosen to do a masters in conservation of larger mammals. For this reason I have spent nine months in

Sabah, in which I have had experiences in the field as well as with local societies, organisations, tourists and authorities. This have provided an insight, as to where the banteng are living (climate, habitat, etc.), and difficulties encountered during field studies, but also how the banteng are being perceived and valued among local people and authorities. In the following I will give a short outline of my study.

Aim of study

The aim of my study has been to identify important habitat needs for the banteng. As the main part of this I have soughtto identify important food plants through a diet analysis, as well as to determine the distribution (frequency and location) of these plants in the habitat. Finally it has been my aim to collect data on local group sizes and structures, in order to evaluate current status and numbers.

Study sites

My fieldwork was done in two of the main localities for banteng in Sabah, namely Tabin Wildlife Reserve and ConservationArea.

Tabin WR is situated in the easternlowlands in the . It is a 120.521 ha reserve managed by the SabahWildlife Department and it is thought to hold the largest population ofbanteng in Sabah. It is surrounded by plantations and hence isolated as a fragment as well as exposedto poaching, illegal logging and other edge effects. However it holds most speciesofSabah wildlife including rare specieslike elephant (Elephas maximus), rhino (Dicerorhinos sumatrensis), sun bear (He/arctos ma/ayanus), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa)and many spectacularand/or rare speciesof birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects and plants. It is thus considered an important site for conservation in Sabah.

4 Maliau Basin Conservation Area, also known as "Sabah's Lost World", is a 58.840 ha area located in the South Central Sabah in the Keningau District. The conservation area fIrst of all comprises the spectacularMaliau Basin, a unique and pristine forest area surrounded (and protected) by high cliffs giving the impression of a crater. The basin holds many endangered speciesof e.g. birds and plants. However it is the secondary forest outside the basin that plays an important part for the larger mammals, such as elephant and banteng (Marsh, 1989).

The Maliau BCA is on the edge of a larger forest area that probably holds a main proportion ofSabah's remaining banteng population. As the MBCA is protected and the roadsides provide plenty of edible grass, it is not uncommon to get direct sightings ofbanteng in this area. However the conservationarea itself supports only a smaller subpopulation and as an isolated fragment this area is unlikely to support populations of larger mammals in the future.

Methods

For identifying habitat needs I have established straight transectsof 500 m inside secondary forest. In these transects I have obtained the following habitat variables for every 50 m:

Variable Method Canopycover Percentcover estimated by looking up throughcardboard cylinder Bush coverlsightability Min and max sightabilityin metersestimated Ground cover Estimatedin 1 m2and given rank 0-5 Ecologicalplant types Presence/absenceof plant type in eachquadrant in 2 m radius (herbs,grasses, ferns,climbers, rattans, smaller trees, larger trees (0 >25 cm» Diameterof largertrees Estimatedfor treeswithin 5 m ladius Slope Detemrinedon 10m distanceby planimeter Position Detemrinedby GPS Soil/groundcharacter Texture/moistureas well as litter coverdescribed

Along the transects I recorded presence/absenceof larger mammals (banteng (Basjavanicus), wild pig (Sus barbatus), sambar deer (Cervus unicalar), elephant (Elephas maximus) and barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac)). This was mainly based on recognising footprints and

5 - occurred on few occasions.

encountered.

Results

The data is currently being processedand the results are yet to be presented.

Discussion

My method is based on contents of dung, i.e. undigested fragments of the ingested plants. This method is more reliable than direct observation and biting marks, in that the contents of dung are an exact picture of what the animal has been eating. It is not subject to bias like ~ different sightability in different habitats (in caseof direct observations), or biting marks '~ produced by other species. Bias such as differences in digestibility among the plants has been found to be of minor importance. The technique, referred to as microhistology, is based on indigestible microscopic parts of the plants, namely epidermal characters.The identification process uses references made from plant specimenscollected by the researcheron the same locality. The setback of the technique is that the reference plants must be collected in advance,

6 thus the researchermust know which plants to look for, and any plants that are not regarded as potential food plants may be left out of the reference collection. In case of unidentifiable plant fragments in the samplesthe researcherwill have to leave these plants as unknown or go back to the locality and try to trace down the plants. In my case I have based my reference collection on different selection criteria. First of all I have given priority to the plants that I have observed having biting marks. Secondly I have browsed the lists of food plants from previous studies (Hoogerwerr, 1970)(Sumardj~ 1976) and compared them to the vegetation on my localities. Plants that were listed as important food plants in other areasand had a great abundancein my area were collected. Finally, I have collected the plants that had a large abundanceand seemedpotential as food plants based on apparent digestibility. If time had allowed it, I would have collected all occurring plants within reasonablelimits in order to minimise the risk of having unidentifiable plant fragments in my samples, but unfortunately this was not possible. I have collected a total of 29 plants listed in Appendix

7 GENERAL BIOLOGY OF THE BA~NTENG

Systematics

Bovidae). There are five speciesof oxe~ three of which belongs to what is tenned Asian Wild Cattle. These three are the banteng, the gaur (Bosfront a/is, Seladang)and the kouprey (Bas sauve/i) which all inhabit forests in South East Asia. All three specieshave declined in numbers during the past century and are now threatened with extinction. The kouprey being restricted to Cambodia is the most critically endangered(MacKinnon & StuaIt, 1989). The banteng and the gaur have both been domesticated in parts of South East Asia. However the majority of domestic cattle (Bos taurus) world-wide, including the Indian cattle type Zebu (Bas indicus), is derived from the aurochs (Bas primigenius). This is the only wild ox to have occurred in Europe. It was historically distributed throughout Europe, in most of Asia and in the Northern Africa until it became extinct during the Middle Ages due to habitat destruction and hunting. The Asian Wild Cattle may now be facing a similar fate. The fifth and last member in the genus is the Yak (Bas grunniens) which occurs in the highlands of the Himalayas and thus has a whole different range of adaptations.This has also beendomesticated. The banteng is usually divided into three subtypesteffiled B.j.javanicus (Javantype), B.j.biffilanicus (mainland type) and B.j.lowi (Bomean type).

Morphology The banteng is a quite charismatic bovine. With a body size a little smaller than the gaur it may resemble a domestic cow, but its characteristic colourings with white stockings and a white rump makes it unique. The banteng exhibit sexual dimorphism, in which the cows and juveniles are brown, while the mature bulls are black. The mature bulls furthermore have a larger and more muscular body, as well as longer and bigger horns. The horns of the bull curve outward and forward, while the horns of the cows are more upright. Domestic banteng resemblethe wild, but sexual dimorphism is less distinct. The bulls commonly have the same brown cqlour as the cows, and they are not as muscular and longhomed as the wild bulls.

8 Bantengbull in Maliau BCA. Photo:S. Yasuma

Bantengcows andjuveniles, EastKalimantan. Photo: S. Yasunm

Physiology The banteng is a ruminant, meaning that the intaken food is kept in the stomachs for a long time in order to digest hard digestible matters. Ruminants have several stomach chambers allowing the food to be digested properly. Furthermore the food is returned several times to the mouth where it is chewed into smaller pieces. This system makes it possible for the animals to feed on coarse plants like grasses,sedges, bushes and trees, that have a high content of cellulose, lignin, silica etc. which are otherwise difficult to digest.

9 short time, after which the animal can retreat to a safer place to digest

Population structure

The banteng live in small groups sometimes gathering into larger herds. The groups usually

consist of females with their calves and juveniles and one or two mature bulls. It is discussed

whether the group is being led by the bull or by older cows, as the bull sometimes seems to have a quite loose attachment to the group. Single individuals are commonly bulls living a

satellite existence in the surroundings of the female groups. A group of2-8 individuals is

common, but at preferred feeding grounds the groups can form herds of 50 individuals

(Hoogerwerf, 1970).

Behaviour

As a ruminant the banteng spend most of the time either eating or resting/ruminating. They have fixed home ranges in the sensethat they prefer to stay around the same feeding/water supplies and do not migrate very much unless forced to do so (Hoogerwen, 1970), (Bowman & Panton, 1991). It has been observed that in areaswhere the habitat changesdue to seasonalweather changes, the banteng migrate to other areas.This could happen in areas that have plenty of grassesin the dry season,but become flooded when the rainy seasontakes over. The banteng then move to more hilly areaswhere they can feed on fresh shoots of other plants (Hoogerwerf, 1970).

As is seen in other ungulates, the home range is not defended, but the bulls will fight for the rights to mate with a cow or a group of cows. Serious fights are rare though, as actual physical contact betweenthe bulls is limited, but displays of strength such as horn clashing and have been observed. Aggression towards enemies such as man has not been recorded, though the banteng have a reputation of being quite aggressiveif threatened. When alarmed the banteng will give a loud snort eventually followed by a crashing escape through the vegetation. Bellowing will occur among cows and juveniles (Hoogerwerf, 1970).

In disturbed areas,including Sabah,the banteng seemto be nocturnal. However, in Maliau BCA they are often observed in daytime too. In other arease.g. Java the bantengare reported

10 mestling" to visit feeding grounds during daytime and even spend hours in direct sunlight (Hoogerwerf,

1970).

The banteng are rather shy and though they might seema bit slow and lazy when encountered during their road strolls, one should not underestimate their ability to hide inside the forest and to crash away when alarmed.

Bali Cattle (domesticbanteng), Sabahmas Plantation

11 DISTRIBUTION

Bali and Sumatra. The original range countries therefore include Bangladesh,India,

Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei (IUCN,

2000).

Today the distribution has become more limited ranging from Myanmar in the West to Indochina in the East and Thailand in the south on the Asian mainland. The banteng still occur on Borneo, Java and Bali, but not Sumatra. This means that regarding original range countries the banteng is now considered extinct in India, Bangladeshand Brunei. Furthennore, it is regarded extinct on Peninsular Malaysia (since 1950's) and probably also in Sarawak (last reported during 1980's), leaving Sabah as the only Malaysian state holding

populations ofbanteng (IUCN, 2000),(Hedges et aI., in prep.).

World-wide the population estimate by rnCN is 5000-8000 individuals, but as a great part of these animals still live in areas that are poorly protected, the populations are still declining. In Thailand it is believed that populations have been reduced at least 80% within 20 years (Srikosamatara& Suteethom, 1995). IUCN has recently included the banteng in the category of endangeredspecies (Listed in CITES Appendix 1)(IUCN, 2000). According to the Rio Convention on Biodiversity of 1992, this means that all range countries of the banteng must ensure its protection and prohibit any trade of the animals or their products.

The banteng is thought to be native to Borneo. Fossils have beenfound in Niah cave in Sarawak, as well as the Madai caves in Sabah(Hedges et aI., in prep.).

Domestication of the banteng has taken place mainly on Bali, hence the common name Bali Cattle. From Bali the cattle have been distributed to many places throughout Asia as well as to Australia and USA. The majority of importations though was done inside Indonesia including Kalimantan (IndonesianBorneo).

12 It is not clear whether domestication has taken place other places as well. However the breeding and distribution of the Bali cattle was done under very strict rules, making it quite possible that the Bali cattle on Borneo are in fact from Bali, and have been imported during the 50'es or 60'es (payne & Rollinson, 1973).

The spread of domestic banteng has resulted in feral herds now occurring in some places. In Australia domestic banteng were first introduced in 1847 and today the Northern Territory holds the largest feral population in the world. This is also the only population ofbanteng that can still be legally hunted. Feral herds also exist on Borneo (Kalimantan), but the extent of these is not known. The feral herds are thought to have crossbred with the wild populations, and hence the status, number and condition of the banteng on Bor.noo remain unknown.

Last, but not least, banteng occur in several zoos throughout the world

13 USE AND PREt~RENCES

The Bantenguse a rangeof habitatsfrom lowland rainforestto savannahwoodland. As most

studies have been observational, it is difficult to determine where the habitats used are the actual preferred choices and where the habitats are being used simply in lack of preferred areas. In areas on Asian mainland, where more habitat types are available, it has been concluded that banteng tend to avoid evergreenrainforest and prefer more open dry deciduous forest. On Java and Borneo, where the climate is naturally more humid, they are reported to occupy secondaryas well as sub-humid forest. Their use of closed forest is probably due to human disturbance in the more open preferred areas(Hedges, in prep.). It thus seemsthat the banteng have a preference for dry open forest habitats, but are capable of inhabiting more closed and humid areas when forced to do so. Wharton mentions that the banteng are more adaptable than the kouprey and perhaps less exacting in their habitat requirements (Hedges, in prep.)- This might be the reasonwhy the banteng has been able to spreadto Java and Borneo and to co-exist in areas with gaur and kouprey.

Diet

The explanation for the greater adaptability ofbanteng comparedto other cattle may lie in the diet. Hoogerwerf writes: "( ) Almost all connoisseursof game, stock-keepers or veterinary surgeonsare convinced that the speciesof cattle (including the banteng) living in Indonesia cannot thrive well without grassesand grass-like plants as the most substantial part of their diet" (Hoogerwerf, 1970). Scientists also agree that grassesand sedgesplay an important part of the banteng diet. Hoogerwerf reports these plants to be the only components of the diet when analysing the stomach contents of eight bulls, and found no indications of the diet being supplemented by other plants. He did mention though that the amount of grassesand sedgesavailable at the time (dry season)most likely was inadequate for the banteng (Hoogerwerf, 1970). As I will discuss later, the canying capacity of a banteng habitat seemto be closely related to the quantity of available grass forage.

~4

HABITAT It does seem unlikely that the banteng in all habitats and all seasonswould be able to survive on grassesand sedgesalone, and all other scientists also believe or report that apart from these plants, the diet ofbanteng is supplemented by various amounts of browse. The plants commonly reported include bamboo, forbs, young palm leaves, saplings, fruits, leaves, and young branches of shrubs and trees. M. Bartels analysed stomach contents of bulls shot on Java and found browse only (no grasses!).

Most probably the situation is that grassesand sedgesare the preferred food of all cattle, but if seasonor habitat makes this forage temporarily unavailable the banteng are able to survive anyway by browsing on less nutritious plants. This ability might be especially well developed in the banteng compared to other cattle types. It has been observed that, in contrast to Bas taurus, domestic banteng can digest poor quality food efficiently and maintain both good body condition and high fertility (83%) under nutritional stress (Copland, 1974).

Important food plants have been found to include Paspalumconjugatum, Axonopus compressus,Ischaemum muticum, Cynodon dactylon and Psychotria malayana (the latter is a shrub, the rest are grasses).However, the available list of food plants is extensive and varies a great deal, as does the vegetation in the different localities (Hoogerwerr, 1970), (Sudjarma,

1976).

In my study I have tried to get more specific data, as to what the banteng eat and where these plants might occur. Field observations from my two study sites show a remarkable difference in the vegetation. In Malian the roadsides are clearly dominated by the grass Paspalum conjugatum and the composite Eupatorium odoratum, whereas in Tabin there seemto be a more even distribution of several grassesand sedges.However in Tabin there is a great abundancein some places of the edible fern Diplazium esculentum (locally known as Pakis), which seemto attract the banteng. It is therefore likely that the banteng in the two areashave different plants as their main diet component. Vegetation inside the forests is in both areas sparseand similar in composition. Further analysesof my data will provide more exact information on the actual food plants and diet preferencesof the banteng in Sabah, or at least these local populations.

lC; Obviously the type and character of a plant has more relevance to the animal than the exact species, so that a speciesof grass that is dominant in one area, but absentfrom another, theoretically could range from being the most important food plant to have no significance at all. For this reasona species list will always be more locally than universally applicable.

Grassesand sedgesare mainly light loving pioneer species,and good grazing grounds includ~

i open areaslike plains, riversides, forest clearings, forest edges, swamps, coastalareas and, roadsides.

Water

An adequatefood supply is an obvious habitat need for all animals. Likewise, most animals are dependentto some extent on availability of drinking water. Banteng are reported to need large quantities of water, and a good freshwater supply is an important part of their habitat. Hoogerwerf suggeststhat the freshwater source must lie within one kilometre from a feeding place and vice versa for any of them to be used. In any case, both factors must be present in an area, otherwise the banteng will have to move to other areas. During drought periods they can survive several days without drinking, but they are also reported to willingly venture into belly-deep mud in order to drink from their usual pool even when supposedly better pools are available in the area (Hoogerwerf, 1970).

Minerals

A third, but not very well-studied, habitat factor is the natural sources of minerals. Banteng are reported by many to occasionally drink from a mineral-spring or even seawater or make use of mineral licks occurring in their habitat.

Mud volcanoes are present in Tabin Wildlife Reserve, but during my work I never found footprints ofbanteng to indicate that these natural mineral sources are playing an important part for the banteng. Footprints of wild pig and elephant were frequent and footprints of sambar deer and even rhino were also observed here. I believe that no banteng populations have included one of these two mud volcanoes in their home range, that means that if the banteng visit these spots at all, it is on a non-regular basis perhaps in connection with

If) migration if such occurs. Smaller mineral sources such as salt licks are present in the reserve but difficult to locate. Presumably, the banteng make use of these. Ira salt lick occurs near this would be sufficient, as must be the case in areas where no mud volcanoes are present.

Forest Cover

The forest cover itself is believed to be an important factor, especially in disturbed areas, in terms of providing cover and thus safety for the animals (from human disturbance). This safety precaution can be seen as a trade-off, since the closed forest itself does not provide much food for these animals. This is also the opinion ofHoogerwerf, who clearly states that

"if the banteng nowadays remains in many places exclusively or almost exclusively in forest with a continuous canopy, this is for reasons of safety and even then every opportunity to leave the forest without getting into too much danger will be taken.

Apart from human disturbance the forest could also hypothetically serve as cover from predators and/or the heat. However in the case of predators, it seems that a good sightability allowing the prey (the banteng) to spot the predator in time would be more important than cover, which rather would be an advantage to the predator, making it easier to sneak up on th j prey. The predator would be spotting its prey anyway by the sense of smell.

As far as the heat is concerned, Hoogerwerf repeatedly has observed the bantengs grazing or resting continuously in direct sunlight with no indications of being bothered by the severe heat (Hoogerwerf, 1970).

Thus so far the forest cover seems to have little importance other than protection from human hunters.

Trails

During my surveys I did not find any footprints inside the forest. This might be due to the forest litter making it very difficult to spot footprints, but the more conspicuousdung was not found either, except for one time. If footprints and/or dung was observedalong my transects was usually in ~~necti~n with trails or old logging roads. This indicate~ that the banteng ~;!r make use of existing trails and roads, although they are capable of crashmgthrough the ~:; "

l~ forest vegetatlon/brush layer usually is denseand hard to penetrate.A large animal as the I banteng would experience many difficulties and bruises/scratchesunless using already clearJ I trails.

18 HABITAT1MANAGEMENT

In Sabahthe banteng occur in secondary forests. The question is to what extent the banteng

actually prefer these forests or whether they have been forced to retreat to closed habitats as the poaching and disturbanceseliminated all other prefelTed habitats. As far as my studies have shown me, the vegetation inside the forest is extremely sparse, and not suitable to feed a group ofbanteng. However, as Hoogerwerfpoints out, since the banteng do occur on Java and Borneo, which once were covered with forest, they must be able to "live and flourish" in primary forest and this must have been the original habitat of this species, at least in these areas. So if the banteng really seek out grazing grounds, then they must be dependent on open areas within these forest habitats, suchas clearings, roadsides, riversides or similar. Hoogerwerf agreeson this as he states: "And yet it will have been the open zones inside or along the fringes of such forest which at all times were necessaryfor the survival of these wild oxen." (Hoogerwerf, 1970). Thus openings occurring from natural causeslike fires (resulting from lightning), volcanic eruptions and flooding along river banks must have served as grazing spots for the banteng, which otherwise made use of forest products. Also edges of swamp and coastal areasmakes a suitable habitat for grassesand sedges(Bowman & Panto~ 1991).

Considering the forests of Sabahone thing comes to mind as an indisputable factor: the riversides. The rivers cut through the forests allowing the sun to penetratethe canopy cover and facilitate the growth of grasses,sedges, ferns and other herbs. Throughout history it seemsthat many banteng populations actually occur along and near river valleys. Reviewing the literature of banteng in Sabah,the populations are often mentioned in connection with the

big rivers (e.g. Sg. Kinabatangan,Sg. Padas, Sg. Segama,Sg. Kuamut, Sg. Sugut, Sg. Kalumpang) (Davies & Payne, 1982.), (Abdullah & Sinun, 2000), (Bleisch, 2001), (Hedges et al., in prep.). In Sabah,the riversides are therefore likely to be the most important naturally occurring feeding grounds in the habitat. Furthermore, this provides a perfect combination of

food and water supply in connection to each other.

As cultivation by man started, larger openings were cleared by burning which facilitated growth of new grasses.The banteng learned to utilise this increased food supply and probably

19 even followed as man cleared the forest. This change in habitat is very likely to have boosted the banteng population and according to Hoogerwerf, the banteng population in the northern lowlands of Java thus reacheda numerical peak in prehistoric times or later (Hoogerwerf, 1970). This indicate that open habitats rather than forest habitats are optimal for banteng. The correlation between burning of land and abundanceofbanteng became clear to the local people, who then started to make use of the annual burnings to attract the animals in favour of hunters. However, the development of the weapons and the arrival of foreign hunting parties, especially during the 1930's made serious impact on the Javanpopulation, which declined rapidly during 1930's and 1940's (Hoogerwerf, 1970).

The answer to the question of preferred habitats could therefore be, that the banteng are adaptedto be able to survive in forests, but as grazing grounds are crucial for their existence, they will make use of more open habitats if possible. It can therefore be discussedwhether a forest existence should be viewed as "forced upon them". However if grazing grounds inside the forest are too sparseto provide enough food (e.g. the reserveis too small, or the soil is nutrient poor), then clearly the populations are trapped in a situation where feeding is possible only in disturbed places such as forest edges and roadsides.This is probably the case in many places, where the banteng therefore are mainly nocturnal.

Today another important habitat feature in the secondaryforests of Sabahis the logging roads. Although made by humans, these roads provide openings in the forests allowing growth of grassesand other herbs along the sides. Such a food resourceis an improvement of the habitat in view of the banteng and it is clear that the banteng do seekout vegetation along roads and feed on it. Direct sightings occur regularly and at the samelocations in casesof a population inhabiting forest edges near roads. They usually come out at night, but the dung and footprints left on the road tell us not only that the banteng were here, but that they followed the road for a distance, along which biting marks can be found in the vegetation.

Human induced clearings are thus not always negative in terms of the wildlife. This point is an important consideration in terms of future managementof the remaining banteng populations. As the habitats are shrinking, it might be necessaryto increasethe density of the animals to avoid the numbers dropping below sustainablelevels. One way of

20 doing this is to increasethe food supply by maintaining/creating grazing areas. Such managementwas practised on Java, e.g. in the Ujung Kulon Park, at the times when the banteng were numerous. When the maintenance of the plains stopped, the grazing areas degeneratedand the numbers ofbanteng decreasedseverely (Hoogerwerf, 1970). It thus seemsthat the population sizes are depending on availability of grassesand can be increased by proper habitat management.

Creating artificial grazing grounds in otherwise protected habitats is of course an act that requires thorough considerations, and managers must make sure that such an operation has the least impact possible for other species.Also, such sites must be strategically placed, as the banteng choose their feeding ground carefully.

21 POPULATIONSIZE AND J7lABILITY

The viability of a population depends on the demographic factors for the population. To determine whether or not a population is large enough to survive it is necessary to know factors like fertility, breeding patterns, proportion of mature individuals, survival rate etc.

Also some species are more adapted towards inbreeding than others and again different populations have different histories and thus can differ in their genetic pools and vulnerability towards small population sizes. This is an important matter in the case of the banteng as the trend in most of this species current range is toward rather small and fragmented populations. Reports of herds of30-40 individuals were frequent in the past, but herds this size are not known to occur anywhere in Sabahtoday. Instead, most reports from the few remaining banteng localities tell ofmax 10 individuals, more often 1-5 individuals or evenjust occasional footprints. According to IUCN there are only 6-8 places in the world known to still hold populations of more than 50 individuals (IUCN, 2000). Other places, including Kalimantan and Sabah,are thought to possibly hold large populations, but it has not been confirmed (Hedges, in prep.). The question therefore remains: how small is the minimum viable population of this species? And how big an area is neededto support such a population? As we do not have all the demographic facts at this point, it is difficult to know the exact answers.However, I would like to point out some facts about the speciesthat are important considerationsto these

questions.

Size First of all, banteng are large animals. Large animals take up more spaceand thus in general have a smaller density pr area than smaller animals. An area e.g. a forest reserve that is adequatefor other speciesmight therefore be too small to hold sustainablepopulations of

banteng.

22 Inbreeding The banteng are reported to live in groups consisting mainly of females and juveniles. This group structure is usually based on a pattern where the females stay in the group, whereas males will leave the group when mature, to seek out other mating grounds. In order to prevent inbreeding it is important that any males entering a group for mating purposesoriginate from a different group. To allow for these interactions it is therefore crucial that an area supports severalgroups ofbanteng. It is not known how many groups are neededto effectively avoid inbreeding, but it should be clear that the more groups presentthe lesserthe chance of inbreeding. In this context the remaining populations of banteng are already alarmingly small

and should not be reduced any further. The most severe effect of inbreeding is loss of fertility among offspring. As this effect takes at least two generationsto manifest itself it might be too late to do anything once the problem is apparent. Thus a group of 10-12 individuals might look like an indicator of healthy conditions, but can only persist and thrive as long as it can interact and exchangegenes with

neighbouringgroups.

Life span This brings us to anotherpoint. Large animals often have long life spans.The banteng reportedly live 20-25 years. This means that population declines are not immediately obvious. The group of 10-12 individuals will continue to roam in the area for a long time whether doomed to extinction or not. This should be considered when evaluating managementchanges

or decreasesin habitat

Fertility

23 Effective population size When discussing population sizes it is important to distinguish between actual and effective population size. The effective population size describesthe number of reproducing individuals in the population. Again we can use the group of 12 as an example. If 6 of the group members are old cows (no longer breeding), 3 are immature juveniles and just 3 are mature individuals capable of reproducing,-thenthe effective population size is actually 3 individuals, not 12. This should be kept in mind when discussing population sizes. For bantengthe proportion of mature individuals in a subpopulationis likely to be at the lower end of35- 700/0.This brings the total number of mature individuals down to 1750-5600

(IUCN, 2000)

Sex ratio In the former example it might look like the group is reproducing at a rate sufficient to replace themselves. However the sex ratio in the group is strongly in favour of females. If the sex ratio at birth is 1: 1, as is often the case, then it would take six juveniles to replace three females.

24 lMAIN THREA TS

Habitat loss

The greatest threat to the future existence of the banteng in the wild is the loss of suitable natural habitats. Forests are converted at an alarming rate into plantations. Other forests are being logged continuously creating a large disturbance. Left aside are only riversides and hilly areasunsuitable for conversion, and these areas might still hold small populations ofbanteng, but the question is how many and how long will these populations be able to persist.

Fragmentation Habitat fragmentation is a common but sad side effect of habitat loss. This tenn describes the fact that the few remaining populations may be locally isolated from each other, becausethe habitat in between has been converted, thus obstructing a natural spread between the areas as well as interactions among the populations. This problem might not be immediately obvious as the individual populations are still surviving, but in the long tenn the populations will be unable to persist as a result of this isolation. The reasonsfor this are the lack of genetic diversity among the population leading to inbreeding, genetic drift or both. In other words the local populations are too small to continuously produce viable offspring and they will die out unless they can interact with individuals from other populations.

Corridors As the problemswith fragmentedpopulations have been identified it is becomingmore and moreobvious to scientistsand reserve managers that somekind of link betweensmall reservesis needed.These links often consist of narrow areasof suitable vegetation connecting the reservesand hence making it possible for the wildlife to move between them. Such areas are termed wildlife corridors, and though the significance of suchare still being discussed there is no doubt that where nothing can prevent the establishingof isolated reservesthis solution must be taken into considerationbefore it is too late.

2S Border areas

Reservesof moderate size naturally have a large proportion of border areas.These areasgivi rise to so-called edge effects, meaning that the habitats near the edges are different than the I rest of the reserve, as they are being influenced by surrounding areas.Edge effects are of various kinds ranging from microhabitat changes(e.g. soil humidity) to human disturbance. How deep the edge effects penetrate into the reserveis difficult to detennine as they vary substantially, but studies in Australia find that elevated forest disturbance was evident up to 500 m inside fragment margins (Laurance, 1991). Speciesthat are sensitive to habitat changes might be absent from areasaffected by such edge effects. The sumatran rhino is known to i avoid areas within at least 5 km of human disturbance (A. Kilbourn, pers.comm.). When planning a natural reserve it is important to considerthese effects as they can reduce the effectiveness of the reserve considerably. If the reserve is being established to protect a certain amount of a specific habitat it is necessaryto consider an adequatebuffer zone I surrounding the area that is aimed for protection, so that the edge effects do not reach into thb areabeing protected.

For the bal1teng,the edge effects are both positive and negative. An obvious edge effect is the increased light facilitating thick light-loving vegetation such as grasses.This abundanceof i herbs, grassesand sedgesis obvious as a food supply for a large herbivore, as it provides a big contrast to the sparsevegetation in the forest floor.

The negative effects that the edges create for the banteng is the risk of poachersentering the! area. Also, the borders are in most casesdirectly connectedto human civilisation, presenting a risk of the banteng interacting with livestock in the surroundings. This could negatively affect the genetic purity of the wild populations, but also enable transfer of diseasesand parasites I ! that could harm the wild populations. I

Poaching Illegal hunting is another major threat to the remaining populations. The banteng are being I hunted not only for their meat, but also for their horns, which some people consider a trophy. In Saba~ the general opinion seemsto be that the meat is a delicacy, though only few people

26 have first handexperience. It is thereforecurious that the indigenouspeople of Kalimantan reportthe meatto be of absolutelyno value, but ratherdistasteful (Hedges et al., in prep.). The tasteis howevermost irrelevantas the bantengis an endangeredwild speciesand not to be considereda productanimal.

Hunting hasalways been part of the indigenouspeople ofBomeo. Todayhowever hunting is no longersustainable. Reasons for this is that weaponshave been improved, and at the same time logging and forestclearing have made most areas accessible for hunters(Bennett et al., 2000). It is thereforecrucial to the persistenceof Sabahwildlife that huntingbans and regulationsare being enforced.

Poaching.Banteng trapped in snare

27 THE BANTENG IN SABAH

No estimateexists for the populationon Borneo.For Sab~ estimatesvary a lot as no reliable surveys have been made. WWF-Malaysia estimated the numbers at 300- 550 in 1982- (Davies & Payne, 1982). A recent report from SabahWildlife Department, reports 1000 as ~ standard estimate, but concludes that the real numbers are probably much lower (Bleisch, 2001). A more pessimistic estimate done in 2000 set the number to 35-70 individuals (Abdullah & Sinun, 2000).

Sabahhas sufIer~d greatly from loss of natural forested areas,a trend, which continues. Many of the bantenghabitats described in 1982 therefore no longer exist. Apparently only six localities, all in Eastern Sabah,are known to still hold banteng. These are Tabin Wildlife Reserve, Kelompong Forest Reserve / Tawau Hills Park, Maliau Basin Conservation Area / Sg. Kuamut, Kalabakan area, Kalumba Wildlife Reserve and Bangkoka Forest Concession. Of the six, Sg. Kuamut and Kalabakan area are not gazetted as reserves or parks. Nevertheless these two areasare believed by some to hold the largest population ofbanteng in Sabah. J.

As the bantengpresumably are being attracted to the roads and forest edgeswith their increased food supplies, it is most common that sightings ofbanteng are reported from such places. However, this does not necessarily imply that these reserves contain similar amounts of banteng in the central more closed areas,as often presumed by the reserve managers.The population estimates may therefore very well be an overestimate. This should be looked into more thoroughly.

My experiencedoes not support the estimatesmade for Tabin Wildlife Reserve in 1994 by JIll., or the one made by H.Juul in MBCA 2000 (Sale, 1994),(Juul-Nielsen,2000). The populations seemto have declined in both areas.

Maliau: My observationsduring a total of five visits to MBCA confirms the presenceof at least one larger group along Belian Road, as well as two bulls and one cow along Agathis Road. My sightings consistsof (1) a single bull, (2) a single bull, (3) a single cow, (4) a group of two

28 bulls and a cow, and (5) a pair with a bull and a cow. I suspectthese sightings to be the same three individuals. In addition I have found footprints and dung piles along Belian Road indicating at least six individuals including at least one juvenile. The staff has reportedly sighted a group of about 10 on several occasions, which I belief to be this group. A single bull has also been reported from this area, but it is uncertain whether this bull is among the 10 or permanently solitary. According to this it is my estimate that the population in MBCA currently counts 15-20 individuals, and not 20-25 individuals, as was the estimated number in

Tabin: In Tabin Wildlife Reserve the accessto most areas are limited. My field trips thus only covered a small part of the reserve. My observations confirm the presenceof a group in the Sungai Urit/Ragged Hill Area. Footprints indicate at least four individuals including at least one juvenile. Numbers of 1-2 individuals was however more commo~ and the camera trap reports a single female. At no time did I find indications of more than 6-8 individuals. Previous estimates for Tabin (100- 150) are based partly on an expected number of 12 in this area (Sale, 1994). I therefore suspectthe current number to be lower than these estimates. I also did a total of eight trips along the 16-22 kIn long Core Area Road leading to the centre of the reserve. During these trips I observed only few signs indicating presenceofbanteng (one dung pile and 1-4 sets offootprints). A group of six was sighted along this road in 2000. During an expedition to the Dagat area (North Central Tabin) I saw signs (a dung pile) from one individual. It thus seemsthat although presenceof banteng is confirmed in several areas(Northwest, North Central, Central) the group numbers are quite low and so is the density. My belief is that even if the Eastern population is in fact numerous, as is being reported, the total number would not reach 100-150 as previously estimated. 50-80 individuals are in my opinion more

Considering that the banteng in Sabahis now restricted to six locations, and that Tabin WR holds one of the largest populations, I fear that the total population in Sabahcould be as low as 150-250 individuals. Furthermore the current populations are by no means secured,but at

29

2000. risk of declining further. An estimate this low, whether it holds true or not, only stress the importance of better surveys and actions in the nearest future

Sabah Wildlife Department has recently carried out a banteng survey in the Kuamut region, and is planning to cover other parts as well. I can only encourage this, as more information on distribution and numbers definitely are needed. The survey report also mentions that the

Sabah population previously may have been overestimated and is now likely to be under serious threat everywhere (Bleisch, 2001).

In Sabah, the banteng are protected under the Wildlife Conservation Enactment of 1997 in which it is listed as a protected animal. However, this does not mean that all hunting and all trade is illegal, as the animals may be hunted under a license issued by the Wildlife

Department (Sabah Wildlife Department, 1997).

Many areas holding banteng have already been declared Wildlife Sanctuaries. However some

main areas" e.g. the Sg. Kuamut area" are not protected and therefore under risk of being logged or even clear-cut in the near future.

In contrast to other pans of Malaysia, the banteng are still surviving in Sabah. However, the numbers are not impressive and it is time that the decline of this species is taken seriously and

efforts taken to prevent the banteng from reaching alarmingly low numbers, as is the case of

the sumatran rhino. This especially concerns the habitat losses. I find it alarming that habitats,

which not only are suitable for the banteng, but already hold populations of this species (e.g.

at Kuamut) remain subject to land conversion by plantations etc., even though the numbers

and distribution of banteng in Sabah still are poorly known.

It seems that numbers are still going down even in areas that has been thought of as ideal for

the banteng (Tabin). In Maliau too the number seems to have fallen in just one year. Whether

this fall is due to poaching or that the animals have moved to nearby areas it is alarming, as

the Maliau BCA is the only properly protected area in that region and should support as many

of the animals as possible. If the MBCA cannot support the existing populations, then how

can it be expected to support any of the animals that would be forced into the area due to disturbances in the surrounding areas? In this light I must say I find it very important that

30 further studiesare doneto revealthe connectionsbetween the bantengpopulations inside and outsideMBCA including homeranges, habitat needs and diet.

Land conversion.Oil palm plantation.

Bantengbull at roadside,Maliau BCA

31 RECOMMENDATIONS

To summariseall aspectsof future conservationof bantengin Sabah, would like to outline the recommendationsthat I find most relevant. First of all, I find it of utmost importance that areas still holding banteng are being identified and protected from land conversion as soon as possible. Surveys should be carried out to provide more reliable estimates of the total population. I recommendthat any land conversion plan take into considerationthe needsof corridors betweenwildlife areas and limit isolation of such areas.No areasshould be isolated unless large enoughto support sustainable populations. Once again I must express concern about MBCA being left as a fragment as the area is unlikely to support enough numbers ofbanteng to form a viable population. Concern should also be taken so that future edgesof reservesbe not placed too close to known banteng habitats, e.g. main rivers as this will present an increased risk of immediate disturbance including poaching. A proper buffer zone should be available for all reserves.

Hunting without a license is aJreadyfonnally banned through the Wildlife Conservation Enactmentof 1997, but such a ban is not effective unless properly enforced. I trust the Sabah Wildlife Department are doing their best in this sense,but I recommend better information to the local communities on the current status and regulations concerning the banteng. Various parts including reserve managers and NGO's may do this. People need to be informed of the reasonsbehind the ban, e.g. the limited distribution and declining numbers. This would help them to seebehind the regulations, and not just obey a rule that has been forced upon them and which they will undertake when possible.

Unawareness An indirect threat that I would like to include here is the lack of public awarenessabout this species.As we are dealing with an endangeredspecies I find it alarming that both globally and locally this species is hardly being given any attention at all. Many conservation measures

32 can be taken but the fact is that in practise very few of them will work unless they have the public support and understanding.

As ecotourism is being developed in Saba~ more tourists from foreign countries will want to experiencethe wildlife of Sabah. Again the banteng is an obvious attraction being one of the few large mammals and with a distribution restricted to South East Asia. However my experiencetells me that many tourists leave Sabahstill unaware that this speciesexists, yet the people who are informed of or even encounter the bantengbecome very interested and gets a richer wildlife experience. For the sake of both the promotion of Sabahas a tourist destination and for the sake of the conservation ofbanteng in SabahI think that more efforts should be done to inform both locals and tourists about this unique species.

Also, the local Sabahansshould be made aware of the banteng as a unique element of their nature, occurring in few other places in the world, and not just an alternative meat source. The Asian elephant, the sumatranrhino, the hornbills, the sun bear and the clouded leopard already serve as flagship species in the eyes of Sabahans.The banteng has an equal status, potential and right to be included in this group, and by being so a great steptowards it future conservationwould already be taken.

33 FURTHER STUDIES

There are many things still uncertain about the biology of the banteng. Especially the

Bornean subtype is poorly understood. An obvious suggestion for further studies would therefore be to clarify the genetics of the bornean populations both in order to determine the extend of genetic "pollution" from live-stock, to get a picture of the genetic basis of the subtype differentiation and to check~ whether the banteng on Borneo has been introduced or not. A genetic study could also determine the extent and need of interactions between subpopulations. Finally a genetic study of the differences between domestic and wild banteng would be useful in terms of future conservation strategies.

A habitat study of the forest living banteng on Borneo as well as on the mainland is yet to be done. Behaviour among the forest living banteng is very poorly understood too, but also extremely difficult to study, as it requires direct observations. Indications of the physical status among subpopulations can be collected by studying internal parasite levels in dung piles. Finally a home range study by use of radio tracking would be very useful both in terms of conservation and wildlife management.

~4CKNO WLEDGEMENTS

I would herebylike to thank my sponsorsWWF-Denmark/Novo Nordisk, DANCED and

University of Copenhagenfor supporting this project. Furthermore I would like to gratefully thank my supervisorsPr. Jon Fjeldsaa, Dr. Edwin Bosi and Hanne H. Hansen; all the people at Universiti Malaysia Sabah, SabahWildlife Department, Tabin Field Station, and Forest ResearchCentre Sepilok; the very competent managementand staff at Maliau Basin Conservation Area; Ben F. Karim, SOS Rhino, WWF-Sabah, Henrik Juul-Hansen, Simon Lregaard, Simon Hedges, Gwynn Rentfleish, Silke Johannsen,Kristian Kjeldsen, Finn Borchsenius, and last but not least Dr. Axel Dalberg Poulsen,all of which has helped me to

make this work possible.

3f4 REFERENCE~

Balmford, A., Leader-Williams, N., and Green, M.J.B. 1995. Parb or arks: Whereto conserve threatenedmammals? Biodiversity and Conservatio~ 4: 595-607.

Bleisch, W .V. 200 I. Courseand SurveyReport. DANCED-Wildlife Department CAP Project,Sabah, Malaysia.

Bowman, D.M.J.S. and Panton, W.J. 1991. Sign and habitat impact of banteng(Bos javanicus) and pig (Susscrofa), Cobourg Peninsula, northern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 16: 15-17.

Davies, G. and Payne, J. 1982. A Faunal Survey of Sabah. IUCN/WWF Project No. 1692. WWF-Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Hansen, RM., Foppe, T.M., Gilbert, M.B., Clark, RC., and Reynolds, H.W. 1976. The Microhistological analyses ofFeces as an Estimator of Herbivore Dietary. The Composition Analysis Laboratory, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Hedges, S. in prep. Asian Wild Cattle and Buffaloes. Status Report and ConservationAction Plan. IUCN/SSC Asian Wild Cattle Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.

Hedges, S., Duckworth, W., Srikosamatara, S., Meijaard, E., and Tyson, M. in prep. Distribution, status,and conservation of banteng, Bos javanicus (Artiodactyla, Bovidae).

Hoogerwerf, A. 1970. Udjung Kulon. The Land of the Last Javan Rhinoceros. E.J.Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Juul-Nielsen, H. 2000. A Survey of Larger Mammal Speciesin the Maliau Basin, Sabah, Malaysia. Unpublished MSc-thesis.

Laurance, W .F. 1991. Edge Effects in lropical Forest Fragments: Application ofa Model for the Design ofNature Reserves. Biological Conservation,57 (2):205-219.

35 MacKinnon, J.R and Stuart, S.N. 1989. The Kouprey. An Action Plan for its Conservation. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.

Marsh, C. W. 1989. Expedition to Maliau Basin, Sabah,April-May, 1988, Final Report. Yayasan SabahForestry Division with WWF-Malaysia Project No. MYS 126/88.

Payne, W.J.A. and Rollinson, D.H.I... 1973. Bali Cattle. World Animal Review, 7: 13-21

Sabah Wildlife Department. 1997. Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah,Malaysia.

Sal~ J.B. 1994. ManagementPlanfor Tabin Wildlife Reserve1994. United Nations Development Programme, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah,Malaysia.

Sparks, D.R. and Malechek, J.C. 1968. Estimating PercentageDry Weight in Diets Using a Microscopic Technique. Journal of Range Management, 21: 264-265.

Srikosamatara, S. and Suteethorn, V. 1995. Populations of Gaur and Banteng and Their Mallagement in Thailand Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society, 43: 55-83.

Sumardja, E.A. 1976.The Management of GrazingAreas for Bantengat Pananjung- PangandaranNature Reserve. Biotrop. 1-16.

36 APPENDIX]

List of plant specimenscollected in Sabah2001. f .,

NOTE: This is not a list of actual food plants~ but of plants included in the further analyses df samples.

IS~es na~e Sorghum propinquum Fami~ Poaceae EIeusiI}e i':ld ica Poa<~ Imperata a:x1ferta Poaceae oxyphyllum (>()(I(Eae Paspalum conj!Jgatum Poaceae Paspalum scrobiaJlatum Poaceae COmpressus Poaceae indials Poaceae odoratum Unn. iCompositae balsamifera Ham. ~ - 'Compositae sp. -~ Com~ sp. -= .. Compositae ~tites d. ~~ifolia {,=:)Rot. V . Q:>m(X)sitae pudica Unn. - ~umioosae- Desmodiumct. hetes-ophyllum(Wilkl.) D.C. -.l.egumioosae sp. leguminosae --- Rubus glomeratus Rosaceae Melastoma malabathliaJrn Melastomataceae Diplecbiad. miaantlla Melastomataceae '- Naudea subdita IRubiaceae U rK:aria d. mrda ta Rubiaceae Uncaria cf. bon1eensis Rubiaceae Rmoostyiissp. Cypei"areae Rmbristyiis sp. Cyper-aceae luzulae Cypei-aceae d. poaeformis Cypei-a<:eae Cydosorusalidus (Don) O1ing ypteridaceae d. aInanii ~~--- Gleid1eniaceae Diplazium esa.Jlentum Afuyliaceae

37

I!?iaanoptelisI~~patorium!MikaniaCaesalpiniaCyi1Ix:xx:aJrnISporobuiusIBiumea'MimosaICypef-USScleriaAxonopusIAgerarurnI