sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chevrotain, Moschiola

World Journal of Zoology 8 (4): 388-391, 2013 ISSN 1817-3098 © IDOSI Publications, 2013 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wjz.2013.8.4.75154

Application of Photographic Capture-Recapture Sampling for Estimating Abundance of Indian Mouse indica

12Amol Kumbhar, Charles Leo Prabhu, 1 Jaya Kumar Yogesh, 2 Pichaiyan Francies, 2Gaurang Patwardhan, 22 Qamar Qureshi and Yadavendradev Jhala

1World Wide Fund for Nature - , Nisha building, Near Forest Barrier, Katra, Mandla - 481661, Madhya Pradesh, India 2Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box: 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

Abstract: The Indian Mouse Deer or Spotted (Moschiola indica) is a of even-toed in the Tragulidae family found in India. Its nocturnal behaviour makes difficult to study its population size in forest In current paper we have tried to estimate population through camera trap capture-recapture sampling method in tropical semi-evergreen forest of Periyar Tiger Reserve. Estimated population for mouse deer was 108±25.8 and density was 21±2.1 per sqkm in our intensive study area of 114 sqkm. Method used in current paper can help to explore mouse deer status in Indian landscape.

Key words: Density Indian Chevrotain Periyar Tiger Reserve Population Estimation

INTRODUCTION For (Axix axis) has been uniquely identified using their spots pattern and population exhibit a rich and varied spectrum of coat estimation done by sighting - resighting using pattern [1]. The different types of natural marks that can photographs has been done [7]. Population assessment be used as photographic tags are particularly used for techniques like distance sampling for ungulates is not capture - recapture study when are difficult to applicable for mouse deer, alternative using mark capture - capture physically [2]. However, mouse deer have recapture techniques we can estimate abundance. historically been difficult to monitor because of it being However no protocol for individually identifying Mouse solitary, nocturnal and cryptic behavior as well as smallest deer is published. In this paper we estimated the deer in size. population and density of Indian chevrotain using their The Indian chevrotain or mouse deer Moschiola unique stripes and spots pattern for individual indica (Gray 1852) is distributed across Peninsular India, identification in a capture - recapture design using camera Nepal [3] and Sri Lanka [4]. The species is listed in trap. The following survey design was initially employed schedule -I of the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) and is to estimate the density of tiger and leopard within the categorized as least concern in the IUCN Red Data study site [8] and for the purpose of the study we Book [5]. Mouse deer is the smallest with analysed photographic captures of Indian chevrotain, body length 50 - 58 cm; Shoulder height 25 - 30 cm, Tail which was obtain during study. length 3cm and body weight about 3kg [5]. Body coat is Study area was Pe iyar Tiger Reserve (9°18’ - 9°41’ reddish brown with lighter spots and stripes on the body N & 76°55’ - 77°25’E), which covers an area of 777km2 , of [6]. tropical evergreen, semi evergreen and moist

Corresponding Author: Amol Kumbhar, World Wide Fund for Nature - India, Nisha building, Near Forest Barrier, Katra, Mandla - 481661, Madhya Pradesh, India. 388 World J. Zool., 8 (4): 388-391, 2013 deciduous forests [9]. The elevation of Periyar Tiger Reserve ranges from 800 to 2019m with the highest point at Vellimala. The Periyar Lake, which was formed as a result of the construction of the Mullaiperiyar Dam, has a total area of 26km2 [10]. Major carnivores of Periyar include tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard (Panthera pardus), wild dog (Cuon alpinus) and jackal (Canis aureus). MATERIALS AND METHODS

Camera trap was systematically distributed within the study area by superimposing a 2x2 km grid and deploying double sided camera unit Moultrie D-40 (www.moultriefeeders. com/game-spy-d40) of 36 trap locations covered Minimum Convex Polygon of 114km2 (Image 1). Total sampling effort accumulated to 2772 trap nights of 77 days. We first examined the reliability with which Indian chevrotain can be identified from their spots and stripes pattern following double-blind observer identifications [11]. We used body fore-, mid- and hind- quarters spots and stripes pattern (Figure 1) for individual identification, providing additional supplementary information about mouse deer identification to three investigators. We built capture histories in “X-matrix” format and associated model were estimated using programme CAPTURE in MARK [12, 13]. To use closed population model, the population should be demographically and geographically closed [12], to test our closure assumption program CloseTest 3 was used [14]. Fig. 1: Photographs of Indian Mouse deer (A) and (B) was same individuals and (C) showing differences in spots and stripes pattern which allow for individual identification.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis was done with right flank of mouse deer which yielded maximum number of unique individual

(Mt+1 ). A total of 90 photographs of Indian chevrotain were taken, 45 of left flank which identified 32 unique individuals and 47 of right flank with having 36 unique individuals were identified by all three Investigators. All the individual photo captures were identified by pelage pattern using their fore -, mid - and hind - quarter were consistent among all investigators, with not only number but also id that is each photo goes to same individually each observer being identified. The capture Image 1: Map of Periyar Tiger reserve shows camera probability (p - hat) of mouse deer was 0.005 for right flank point locations. which yielded the maximum number of captures. Model

389 World J. Zool., 8 (4): 388-391, 2013

Table 1: Population and density estimate of mouse deer in Periyar Tiger Reserve based on the best model suggested M(h) Jackknife, all three investigators were identified same numbers of individuals. Closure test ------No. Individuals identified XP2 Trap nights P- hat N ± SE ETA(km22 ) D ± SE /Km n = 36 32.7 0.2 2772 0.005 108±25.8 5.04 21.4±2.1 Note: n - Number of individuals identified, X2 - Chi -Square statistic for closure test, P -Capture probability, N - estimated population, SE -Standard error, D - Density of in effective trapping area. selection procedures in program CAPTURE resulted We demonstrate the potential to use camera trap in M(h) Jackknife as the appropriate model. The base mark capture -recapture for better population population size was 108 ± 25.8 (Table 1). We created assessment of the illusive nocturnal mouse deer. Such buffer on each camera trap site for calculate Effective estimates are needed for conservation and management of trapping area (ETA) for mouse deer was 5.04Km2 species. calculated from available home range 0.10 to 0.28 Km2 of related species of lesser mouse deer javanicus ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [15] and African Hyemoscus aquaticus [5]. Density calculated from effective trapping area, was We thank national tiger Conservation Authority 21.4 ± 2.1 /km2 . Population closure was observed to be for their financial support. We acknowledge the Director closed (X2 = 32.7; p = 0.28). and Dean of WII for their facilitation during study. We This study can further support that photographic thank Bidyut and Anil who participated as observer capture-recapture sampling through camera trap is reliable for individual identification of mouse deer from techniques to study abundance of mouse deer which is photographs. We thank Ujjwal for assistance in data individually identified from their natural marking of spots analysis. and stripes. Density estimates of mouse deer was available from other areas of world using different REFERENCES methods for Tragulus javanicus based on distance sampling at the two primary forest sites ranged between 1. Murrey, J.D., 1989. Mathematical Biology, Springer - 21 and 39 animals/ km2 while those of T. napu range verlag Berlin Heidelberg, USA. between 37 and 72 animals/ km2 in tropical rainforest of 2. Yoshizaki, J., K.H. Pollock, C. Brownie and R.A the Ulu Segama Forest Reserve in Sabah, Malaysian Webster, 2009. Modelling misidentification errors in Borneo [16]. Density of African water chevrotain capture-recapture studies using photographic Hyemoscus aquaticus was 7.7 to 28 animals / Km2 in identification of evolving marks, Ecology, 90(1): 3-9. Gabon [17]. Nag [18] estimated abundance of Indian 3. Mitchell, R. and F. Punzo, 1976. New records mouse deer Moschiola indica 1.52 ± 1.11 animals / km2 from Nepal. J. Bomb Nat. Hist Soc., 73: 54-58. through site occupancy modelling in Bhadra Wildlife 4. Eisenberg, J.F. and M. Lockhart, 1972. An Sanctuary. ecological reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park, In our study, identification using fore-, mid- and Ceylon. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, hind- quarter was consistent across investigators with all 101: 1-118. photographs. This camera trap study was design primarily 5. Raman, T.R.S., 2004. Mouse Deer (Moschiola to estimate density of tiger and leopard. However it memmina Eryxleben, 1777). pp: 131-140. In: K. Sankar should be noted that for obtaining good recaptures, size and S.P. Goyal (Eds.) Ungulates of India. ENVIS of sample area should be greater than the home range of Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas, Vil. 07, No.1. mouse deer. Also keeping species biology in mind, camera Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India. pp: 448. placement should be optimized for mouse deer by proper 6. MacDonald, D. and S. Norris, (Eds.), 2001. The new sign survey in terms of distance from the path, height of encyclopaedia of mammals. Oxford University Press, placement. Indian are among the most Oxford, pp: 930. frequent hunted animal by indigenous and local 7. Pariwakam, M.P., 2006. Estimation of abundance and communities along the Western and Eastern Ghats [19, 5] fawn survival in chital (Axis axis) populations using and biomass extraction and intense use of forest photographic capture - recapture sampling. M. Sc. patches by livestock was found to be major threat [20]. Thesis, Manipal University.

390 World J. Zool., 8 (4): 388-391, 2013

8. Jhala, Y.V., Q. Qureshi, R. Gopal and P.R. Sinha (Eds), 14. Stanley, T. and K.P. Burnham, 1999. A closure test 2011. Status of the Tigers, Co-predators and Prey in for time - specific capture - recapture data. Envir India, 2010. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Ecological Stat, 6: 197-209. Govt. of India, New Delhi and Wildlife institute of 15. Matsubayashi, H., E. Bosi and S. Kohshima, 2003. India, Dehradun. TR 2011/003 pp: 302. Activity and Habitat Use of Lesser Mouse - Deer 9. Champion, H.G. and S.K. Seth, 1968. The forest types (Tragulus javanicus), J. Mammol., 84(1): 234-242. of India. Government of India Press, New Delhi. 16. Heydon M.J. and P. Bulloh, 1997. Mouse-deer pp: 404. densities in a tropical rainforest: the impact of 10. Radhakrishnan, K.V. amd B.M. Kurup, 2010. selective logging. Journal of Applied Ecology, Ichthyodiversity of Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala, 34: 484-496. India. Jornl of Threatd Taxa, 2(10): 1192 - 1198. 17. Dubost, G., 2001. Chevrotains. Pp 500-501. In: 11. Kelly, M.J., A.J. Noss. M.S. Bitetti, L. Maffei, MacDonald, D. and Norris, S. (Eds.). The new R.L. Arispe, A. Paviolo, C.D. DeAngelo and encyclopaedia of mammals. Oxford University Press, Y.E. Di Blanko, 2008. Estimating Puma densities from Oxford. camera trapping across three study sites: Bolivia, 18. Nag, K., 2008. Assessing animal abundance from Argentina and Belize. J. Mammal., 98: 401-418. photographic capture data using an occupancy 12. Otis, D.L., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White and D.R. approach. MSc thesis, Manipal University. Anderson, 1978. Statistical inference from capture 19. Madhusudhan, M.D. and K.U. Karanth, 2002. Local data of closed populations. Wildl Monogr, 2: 1 -13. Hunting and the Conservation of Large Mammals in 13. Rexstad, E.A. and K.P. Burnham, 1991. User’s guide India. Ambio., 31: 49-51. for interactive program CAPTURE: abundance 20. Sridhara, S., 2010. Habitat use of Indian Chevrotain estimation of closed animal population. Colorado (Mochiola indica) in someshwara wildlife Sanctuary. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. MSc thesis, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

391