DOCSLIB.ORG

The Maine Wildlifer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Maine Wildlifer THE MAINE CHAPTER OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY TTHEHE MMAINEAINE WWILDLIFERILDLIFER FALL 2017 THE MESOCARNIVORE PROJECT: BACKGROUND, IMPLEMENTATION, AND UPDATE Background Marten and fisher are of particular interest to the Maine’s primary mammalian predators are mid-sized Department. For over 10 years, biologists have (meso) carnivores. This group of species is harvested observed declines in fisher populations; particularly in for their fur. They also are valued by non-consumptive central Maine. To lessen harvest pressure, the Department reduced the fisher season length by users who enjoy seeing them. Of these mesocarnivores, the American marten and fisher are of 50%. However, this shortened season combined with particular importance to Maine. Currently the Maine new restrictions limiting the type of trap sets that Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (hereafter trappers can use and low fur prices have resulted in a the “Department”) uses indices developed from harvest strong change in this species’ harvest rate, reducing data to track the status of marten and fisher our ability to compare current harvest information to populations. Although these techniques are used to past data. Marten in Maine, northern New England, manage most hunted or trapped species in the U.S., and the Adirondacks of New York are in the they have limitations. These techniques perform best southernmost range of this species. University of Maine when harvest effort remains constant. Since the researchers recently concluded that marten populations Department began tracking the harvest of marten, may not be sustainable at current population levels given the changes in Maine’s forest management fisher, and other furbearing mammals, multiple events have influenced harvest effort for these species practices that have occurred over the last 30 years. As including changes in fur prices, season lengths, bag result of these changes optimal marten habitat now limits, and trapping methods. Although biologists can occurs in smaller more fragmented patches and a compare various indices (e.g., number of trappers greater percentage of the northern forest has been catching at least one marten vs. the total marten harvested. However, observations of marten in atypical harvest) to get an idea of how effort has changed, these habitat and sustained harvest levels of marten have indices may not always paint a clear picture of added uncertainty to what degree new forest population trends. The Department recognizes these management practices are affecting the marten shortcomings in its management systems for population. With this combination of factors mind, the mesocarnivores and has a strong interest in Department sought to develop a monitoring tool independent of harvest data that could be used to track strengthening its monitoring efforts. Continued on page 2 INSIDE THE MAINE WILDLIFER: New Web Comic Highlights Vernal Pool Ecology ............ 4 LD 5: an Amendment to Exclude Wildlife Issues from Citizen’s Initiatives .............................................................. 11 Planning for Big Game Management in Maine ................. 7 Conservation Affairs Committee Update ........................ 13 BRI Common Loon Translocation Study ....................... 8 President’s Corner ................................................... 14 Adapt, Adopt, Advance: Resilience in Natural Resource Management Conference Report ................................. 10 METWS Officers and Committees ............................... 15 THE MAINE WILDLIFER, FALL 2017 PAGE 2 Six of the more common species detected during the first year of the Maine camera trapping project. From Left to right, top to bottom: Ameri- can marten, fisher, coyote, snowshoe hare, red fox, and white-tailed deer. population trends in marten, fisher, and potentially approach should allow the Department to non- other mesocarnivores across the state. invasively sample large portions of the state at a In 2016, the Department began collaborating with Dr. reasonable cost. Trail cameras were chosen over other Mortelliti of the University of Maine with the goal of methods (hair snares, snow track surveys, scent post funding a Ph.D. level project with the primary stations) because of trail cameras ease of set up and objective of developing a statewide monitoring deployment, reliable species identification through protocol for marten and fisher (and potentially other photos, the ability to get substantial sampling efforts (number of days camera is operating) out of a single species). This protocol needed to be feasible to implement in the field over a large area, robust enough deployment, and their ability to perform in a variety of to reliably identify changes in population trends, and environmental conditions. applicable to a range of habitat conditions. With these Implementation criteria, developing a monitoring protocol based on an In December of 2016, a PhD student, Bryn Evans, was occupancy design utilizing trail cameras was identified hired to lead this effort. With a strong background of as the best approach. An occupancy based approach diverse fieldwork, and a masters degree focused on (presence/absence data) was chosen as opposed to semiaquatic mammals and camera trapping, she was a methods that track individual fitness, survival, and/or spatially explicit abundance. An occupancy based Continued on page 3 THE MAINE WILDLIFER, FALL 2017 PAGE 3 Mesocarnivore Project, Continued from page 2 Table 1. A compilation of both unique stations (n=32) and unique cameras (n=156) that recorded a marten, great fit for the position. By January 2017, winter field fisher, coyote, red fox, or snowshoe hare during the work started. A major component of this first field winter 2017 camera deployment in northern Maine. season was straightforward: conduct a pilot study that Stations identifies the optimal sampling unit. For our project, Species Stations/Cameras Occupied (%) this meant identifying how many cameras were needed and at what spacing cameras should be placed at a given Marten 24/72 75% site to ensure a satisfactory detection probability. While placing more cameras in a site would theoretically Fisher 16/47 50% increases detection probability, the more cameras per Coyote 16/28 50% site increases sampling effort and decreases the number sites that can ultimately be sampled on a fixed Red Fox 9/17 28% budget. To identify this best compromise sampling design, Bryn tested how combinations of one, two, or Snowshoe hare 13/24 41% three cameras placed at either 100 or 150 meter spacing affected detection in a variety of locations and investigated to see how they influenced detection. habitat types. Detection rates varied drastically based on how many cameras place at a site and spacing for marten, fisher, Winter Field Season and coyote (Fig. 1,2, and 3). From these data, a clear Between January and early March, Bryn and a pattern emerged. First, across multiple species and technician deployed 5 cameras per site at a total of 32 various covariates that influenced detection (habitat sites across northern Maine. Sites were randomly quality, distance to road, or site) a single camera selected from three study areas representing varying yielded low detection rates, often below the 0.3 quality marten habitat as identified from previous threshold. A two camera array performed much better modeling efforts at UMaine. Cameras were placed in a than a single camera, but when the third camera was “T” formation with the horizontal portion of the “T” added detection improves drastically in most having three cameras placed 100 meters apart, and the situations. Lastly, a three camera array at 100 m vertical portion having two cameras placed 150 meters spacing usually resulted in the highest detection rates apart. Marten and fisher were lured to the camera with for fisher and coyote, but not marten. After reviewing a bait of beaver meat inside a wire cage and a skunk the different options, it was decided that three cameras based lure. Baited cameras were deployed for a minimum of 2 weeks. From this initial effort, over 7882 images were captured, resulting in 19 species of wildlife detected; 10 of which were carnivores. The most common species observed included marten, fisher, coyote, red fox, and snowshoe hare (Table 1). Base occupancy rates (before they were corrected for imperfect detection) for marten, fisher, coyote, weasels, and snowshoe hare were all well above 0.3 -- the minimum detection threshold. From these data, Bryn and Dr. Mortelliti analyzed the camera arrays to identify which camera arrangement (spacing between Figure 1. Detection probabilities from the top performing marten and number of cameras) provided the best compromise model for five different camera arrays (1, 2 short, 3 short, 2 long, of sufficient detection rates and efficient sampling 3 long) in areas identified as high quality and low quality marten effort. Additionally, several covariates (site, quality of habitat in northern Maine. habitat, and distance from accessible road) were Continued on page 4 THE MAINE WILDLIFER, FALL 2017 PAGE 4 Figure 2. Modeled detection probabilities from the top performing Figure 3. Modeled detection probabilities for the top performing fisher model for five different camera arrays (1, 2 short, 3 short, 2 coyote model for five different camera arrays (1, 2 short, 3 short, 2 long, 3 long) in three different distances to a publicly accessible long, 3 long) in three sampling areas. road. at 100 meter (short) spacing yielded the best this
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young
    By Blane Klemek MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young Naturalists the Slinky,Stinky Weasel family ave you ever heard anyone call somebody a weasel? If you have, then you might think Hthat being called a weasel is bad. But weasels are good hunters, and they are cunning, curious, strong, and fierce. Weasels and their relatives are mammals. They belong to the order Carnivora (meat eaters) and the family Mustelidae, also known as the weasel family or mustelids. Mustela means weasel in Latin. With 65 species, mustelids are the largest family of carnivores in the world. Eight mustelid species currently make their homes in Minnesota: short-tailed weasel, long-tailed weasel, least weasel, mink, American marten, OTTERS BY DANIEL J. COX fisher, river otter, and American badger. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer May–June 2003 n e MARY CLAY, DEMBINSKY t PHOTO ASSOCIATES r mammals a WEASELS flexible m Here are two TOM AND PAT LEESON specialized mustelid feet. b One is for climb- ou can recognize a ing and the other for hort-tailed weasels (Mustela erminea), long- The long-tailed weasel d most mustelids g digging. Can you tell tailed weasels (M. frenata), and least weasels eats the most varied e food of all weasels. It by their tubelike r which is which? (M. nivalis) live throughout Minnesota. In also lives in the widest Ybodies and their short Stheir northern range, including Minnesota, weasels variety of habitats and legs. Some, such as badgers, hunting. Otters and minks turn white in winter. In autumn, white hairs begin climates across North are heavy and chunky. Some, are excellent swimmers that hunt to replace their brown summer coat.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Habits of Black Bears in Suburban Versus Rural Alabama
    Food Habits of Black Bears in Suburban versus Rural Alabama Laura Garland, Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, AL 36849 Connor Ellis, 18832 #1 Gulf Boulevard Indian Shores, FL 33785 Todd Steury, Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, AL 36849 Abstract: Little is known about the food habits of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Alabama. A major concern is the amount of human influence in the diet of these bears as human and bear populations continue to expand in a finite landscape and bear-human interactions are increasing. To better understand dietary habits of bears, 135 scats were collected during late August to late November 2011–2014. Food items were classified into the cat- egories of fruit, nuts/seeds, insects, anthropogenic, animal hairs, fawn bones, and other. Plant items were classified down to the lowest possible taxon via visual and DNA analysis as this category composed the majority of scat volumes. Frequency of occurrence was calculated for each food item. The most commonly occurring foods included: Nyssa spp. (black gum, 25.2%), Poaceae family (grass, 24.5%), Quercus spp. (acorn, 22.4%), and Vitis spp. (muscadine grape, 8.4%). Despite the proximity of these bear populations to suburban locations, during our sampling period we found that their diet primarily comprised vegetation, not anthropogenic food; while 100% of scat samples contained vegetation, only 19.6% of scat samples contained corn and no other anthropogenic food sources were detected. Based on a Fisher’s exact test, dietary composition did not differ between bears living in subur- ban areas compared to bears occupying more rural areas (P = 0.3891).
    [Show full text]
  • Species Assessment for the Humboldt Marten (Martes Americana Humboldtensis)
    Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Species Assessment for the Humboldt Marten (Martes americana humboldtensis) R. Hamlin, L. Roberts, G. Schmidt, K. Brubaker and R. Bosch Photo credit: Six Rivers National Forest Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, California 95521 (707) 822-7201 www.fws.gov/arcata September 2010 i The suggested citation for this report is: Hamlin, R., L. Roberts, G. Schmidt, K. Brubaker and R. Bosch 2010. Species assessment for the Humboldt marten (Martes americana humboldtensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. 34 + iv pp. ii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 1 Species Description ................................................................................................... 1 Taxonomy.................................................................................................................. 1 Life History ............................................................................................................... 4 Reproduction .................................................................................................. 5 Diet ................................................................................................................ 5 Home Range
    [Show full text]
  • American Marten (Martes Americana) Species Assessment Prepared For
    American Marten (Martes Americana) Species Assessment Prepared for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest September 2005 Prepared by Matt Vasquez1 with contributions by Leslie Spicer1, 2005 1 Biological Science Technician (Wildlife), Gunnison Ranger District Reviewed and Edited by Clay Speas, Forest Fisheries Biologist and Tom Holland, Forest Wildlife Biologist Cover photos taken by remote cameras at track plate and bait stations on the Gunnison Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest. Last Revised: September 28, 2005 Page 1 of 23 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest American Marten (Martes Americana) Species Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 5 HABITAT CRITERIA USED IN FOREST-WIDE HABITAT EVALUATION ................................... 6 2001 MIS Habitat Criteria...................................................................................................................... 6 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................... 6 2005 MIS Habitat Criteria...................................................................................................................... 6 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FISHER Pekania Pennanti
    WILDLIFE IN CONNECTICUT WILDLIFE FACT SHEET FISHER Pekania pennanti Background J. FUSCO © PAUL In the nineteenth century, fishers became scarce due to forest logging, clearing for agriculture, and overexploitation. By the 1900s, fishers were considered extirpated from the state. Reforestation and changes in land-use practices have restored the suitability of the fisher’s habitat in part of its historic range, allowing a population to recolonize the northeastern section of the state. Fishers did not recolonize suitable habitat in northwestern Connecticut, since the region was isolated from a source population. Fishers were rare in western Massachusetts, and the developed and agricultural habitats of the Connecticut River Valley were a barrier to westward expansion by fishers in northeastern Connecticut. A project to reintroduce this native mammal into northwestern Connecticut was initiated by the Wildlife Division in 1988. Funds from reimbursement of trapping wild turkeys in Connecticut for release in Maine were used to purchase fishers caught by cooperating trappers in New Hampshire and Vermont. In what is termed a "soft release," fishers were penned and fed at the release site for a couple of weeks prior to being released. Through radio and snow tracking, biologists later found that the fishers that were released in northwestern Connecticut had high survival rates and successfully reproduced. As a result of this project, a viable, self-sustaining population of this native mammal is now established in western Connecticut. Fishers found throughout eastern Connecticut are a result of natural range expansion. In 2005, Connecticut instituted its first modern day regulated trapping season for fishers. Most northern states have regulated fisher trapping seasons.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Fur Harvester Digest 3 SEASON DATES and BAG LIMITS
    2021 Michigan Fur Harvester Digest RAP (Report All Poaching): Call or Text (800) 292-7800 Michigan.gov/Trapping Table of Contents Furbearer Management ...................................................................3 Season Dates and Bag Limits ..........................................................4 License Types and Fees ....................................................................6 License Types and Fees by Age .......................................................6 Purchasing a License .......................................................................6 Apprentice & Youth Hunting .............................................................9 Fur Harvester License .....................................................................10 Kill Tags, Registration, and Incidental Catch .................................11 When and Where to Hunt/Trap ...................................................... 14 Hunting Hours and Zone Boundaries .............................................14 Hunting and Trapping on Public Land ............................................18 Safety Zones, Right-of-Ways, Waterways .......................................20 Hunting and Trapping on Private Land ...........................................20 Equipment and Fur Harvester Rules ............................................. 21 Use of Bait When Hunting and Trapping ........................................21 Hunting with Dogs ...........................................................................21 Equipment Regulations ...................................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Sustainable Bycatch Rates for California Sea Lion Populations in the Gulf of California
    Contributed Paper Estimating Sustainable Bycatch Rates for California Sea Lion Populations in the Gulf of California JARED G. UNDERWOOD,∗‡ CLAUDIA J. HERNANDEZ CAMACHO,∗† DAVID AURIOLES-GAMBOA,† AND LEAH R. GERBER∗ ∗Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Science, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, College & University Drive, Tempe, AZ 85287-1501, U.S.A. †Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas-IPN, Av. IPN s/n Col. Playa Palo de Santa Rita, La Paz BCS 23096, Mexico´ Abstract: Commercial and subsistence fisheries pressure is increasing in the Gulf of California, Mexico. One consequence often associated with high levels of fishing pressure is an increase in bycatch of marine mammals and birds. Fisheries bycatch has contributed to declines in several pinniped species and may be affecting the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) population in the Gulf of California. We used data on fisheries and sea lion entanglement in gill nets to estimate current fishing pressure and fishing rates under which viable sea lion populations could be sustained at 11 breeding sites in the Gulf of California. We used 3 models to estimate sustainable bycatch rates: a simple population-growth model, a demographic model, and an estimate of the potential biological removal. All models were based on life history and census data collected for sea lions in the Gulf of California. We estimated the current level of fishing pressure and the acceptable level of fishing required to maintain viable sea lion populations as the number of fishing days (1 fisher/boat setting and retrieving 1 day’s worth of nets) per year. Estimates of current fishing pressure ranged from 101 (0–405) fishing days around the Los Machos breeding site to 1887 (842–3140) around the Los Islotes rookery.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Avoid Incidental Take of American Marten
    How to Avoid Incidental Take Of American Marten While Trapping or Snaring Mink and other Furbearers. Jon Stone The purpose of this information is to reduce injury and mortality to the Endangered American Marten population caused by trapping mink and/or other furbearers. Marten are similar in appearance and habits to mink, and their ranges overlap with other furbearer species, and with each other. Therefore, it is important for trappers to know how to distinguish marten from mink, to recognize their preferred habitat types, and to avoid capturing or harvesting marten. Trappers must also learn what to do if a marten is caught incidentally. American marten Current Status Researchers speculate the current American marten (Martes americana) population on Cape Breton Island may be less than 50 animals. Consequently, in the summer of 2001, the marten population on Cape Breton Island was provincially listed as "endangered" under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act. Thought to be extirpated from the mainland, several marten re-introductions have been attempted. It seems these reintroductions have been successful, as there have been some very recent records of marten in southwest Nova Scotia. The status of the marten on the mainland is considered "data deficient," (meaning more research is required before giving it a designation). The harvesting of marten is not permitted in Nova Scotia. Time is of the Essence Small, localized populations, like the marten on Cape Breton Island, are vulnerable to local extinction. Factors such as inbreeding (a genetic effect), as well as habitat loss, accidental capture, starvation, and certain random events like disease, fire, and unusual weather events could eliminate the entire population.
    [Show full text]
  • Marten Management System and Database
    MARTEN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND DATABASE SEPTEMBER 1990 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Wildlife Resource Assessment Section Mammal Group MARTEN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I MARTEN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4 MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES....................................................... 5 MANAGEMENT GOALS............................................................................ 5 ASSUMPTIONS......................................................................................... 6 MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESS ............................................................... 7 INPUT CRITERIA FOR MARTEN MANAGEMENT ................................... 9 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 14 CHRONOLOGY OF MARTEN MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................. 15 PART II MARTEN MANAGEMENT DATA BASE.......................................................... 16 MARTEN DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY....................................................... 17 MARTEN HARVEST DATA ..................................................................... 17 HARVEST VERSUS ALLOWABLE HARVEST........................................ 17 EFFORT .................................................................................................. 18 REGIONAL AND TRAPPER OBSERVATIONS....................................... 18 LITERATURE CITED
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States
    United States The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores Department of Agriculture Forest Service American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, Rocky Mountain and Wolverine Forest and Range Experiment Station in the Western United States Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 General Technical Report RM-254 Abstract Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Lyon, L. Jack; Zielinski, William J., tech. eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p. This cooperative effort by USDA Forest Service Research and the National Forest System assesses the state of knowledge related to the conservation status of four forest carnivores in the western United States: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. The conservation assessment reviews the biology and ecology of these species. It also discusses management considerations stemming from what is known and identifies information needed. Overall, we found huge knowledge gaps that make it difficult to evaluate the species’ conservation status. In the western United States, the forest carnivores in this assessment are limited to boreal forest ecosystems. These forests are characterized by extensive landscapes with a component of structurally complex, mesic coniferous stands that are characteristic of late stages of forest development. The center of the distrbution of this forest type, and of forest carnivores, is the vast boreal forest of Canada and Alaska. In the western conterminous 48 states, the distribution of boreal forest is less continuous and more isolated so that forest carnivores and their habitats are more fragmented at the southern limits of their ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes Necator): a Conservation Assessment
    Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): A Conservation Assessment John D. Perrine * Environmental Science, Policy and Management Department and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley Lori A. Campbell** USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Sierra Nevada Research Center Davis, California Gregory A. Green Tetra Tech EC Bothell, Washington Current address and contact information: *Primary Author: J. Perrine, Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0401 [email protected] **L. Campbell, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 Perrine, Campbell and Green R5-FR-010 August 2010 NOTES IN PROOF • Genetic analyses by B. Sacks and others 2010 (Conservation Genetics 11:1523-1539) indicate that the Sacramento Valley red fox population is native to California and is closely related to the Sierra Nevada red fox. They designated the Sacramento Valley red fox as a new subspecies, V. v. patwin. • In August 2010, as this document was going to press, biologists on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest detected a red fox at an automatic camera station near the Sonora Pass along the border of Tuolomne and Mono Counties. Preliminary genetic analyses conducted at UC Davis indicate that the fox was a Sierra Nevada red fox. Further surveys and analyses are planned. • The California Department of Fish and Game Region 1 Timber Harvest Program has established a Sierra Nevada red fox information portal, where many management-relevant documents can be downloaded as PDFs. See: https://r1.dfg.ca.gov/Portal/SierraNevadaRedFox/tabid/618/Default.aspx Sierra Nevada Red Fox Conservation Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This conservation assessment provides a science-based, comprehensive assessment of the status of the Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) and its habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • A Yellow-Throated Marten Martes Flavigula Carrying a Small Indian Civet Viverricula Indica
    A Yellow-throated Marten Martes flavigula carrying a Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica Babu Ram LAMICHHANE1*, Chiranjibi Prasad POKHERAL1, Ambika Prasad KHATIWADA1, Rama MISHRA2 and Naresh SUBEDI1 Abstract Yellow-throated Marten Martes flavigula has a wide geographic distribution, but little is known about its ecology and behaviour. A camera-trap survey in and around Chitwan National Park, Nepal, photographed a solitary Marten carrying a Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica. The animal was in a grassland patch amid Sal Shorea robusta forest. It is unclear whether the Marten killed the Civet. Recent camera-trap surveys suggest that Yellow-throated Marten is widespread in Chitwan NP with records from altitudes of 190–675 m; many records are from Sal forest. Keywords: camera-trap, Chitwan National Park, behaviour, distribution, intra-guild carnivore predation, locality records, Nepal, Sal forest मऱसाप्रोऱे सानो ननरबिराऱो आहाराको 셁पमा 쥍याईरहेको बौगोलरक वितयणऺेत्र ठू रो बएताऩनन भरसाप्रोको आननफानीको फायेभा थोयैभात्र जानाकायी यहेको छ। मसि셍ष (२०७० सारभा) 啍माभया ट्रमावऩङ प्रविधधको प्रमोग गयी गरयएको सिेऺणको क्रभभा सारिनरे घेरयएको घाॉसे भैदान ऺेत्रभा भरसाप्रोरेए啍रै एउटा िम�क ननयबफयारो 쥍माईयहेको पोटो खिचेको धथमो। पोटोको आधायभा भात्र उ啍त भरसाप्रोरे ननयबफयारो भायेको हो कक होईन एककन गनष सककएन। मसैगयी ऩनछ쥍रा केही ि셍षभा गरयएका 啍माभेया ट्रमावऩङ सिेऺणको क्रभभा धचतिनको धेयैजसो ऺत्रे भा भरसाप्रोरे विचयण गने गयेको य १९० देखि ६७५ लभटय स륍भको उचाईभा ऩाईएको धथमो। भरसाप्रोको पोटो खिधचएका धेयैजसो ठाउॉ सारिन ऺत्रे भा ऩदषछन।् Introduction riverine and mixed hardwood), 12% grassland, 5% exposed surface and 3% water bodies (Thapa 2011).
    [Show full text]