INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA UIVLI 800-521-0600 Wildlife Response to Habitat Fragmentation and other Human Influences in Tropical Montane Evergreen Forests, Northern Thailand by Anak Pattanavibool B.Sc., Kasetsart University, 1985 M.Sc., Oregon State University, 1993 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Geography We accept this dissefîjation as confirming 1 the reqjair^d standard Dr. P. Dearden, Supervisor l^epartment of Geography) Dr. C. P. Keller, Departmental Member (Department of Geography) Dr. D. A. Duffus, E^arnüental Member (Department of Geography) Dr. P. T Gregory, Outside Member (Department of Biology) Dr. U. Kutintara, External Examiner (Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University) © Anak Pattanavibool, 1999 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopying or other means, without the permission of the author. Supervisor: Dr. P. Dearden ABSTRACT Montane evergreen forests in northern Thailand have been severely fragmented and converted to agricultural lands and other forms of development that affect wildlife. The objectives of this study were to examine patterns and changes in montane evergreen forest patches, and document wildlife responses in terms of species diversity, abundance, and distribution. The study was conducted in Om Koi and Mae Tuen Wildlife Sanctuaries, Chiang Mai and Tak Provinces. LANDSAT TM imagery, aerial photographs, GIS, and the spatial pattern analysis program FRAGSTATS were employed to examine landscape patterns and changes. I found that Om Koi still maintained large patches (> 400ha) with connectivity while Mae Tuen was comprised mainly of small isolated patches (< 100 ha). Mae Tuen lost 2,640 ha of montane evergreen forest within 50 years compared to 888 ha in Om Koi. Road development and cabbage cultivation in Mae Tuen played a major role in accelerating forest loss. For the wildlife survey, I compared 4 forest patches in Mae Tuen, which are heavily fragmented and disturbed, with another 4 in Om Koi, where human influences are less. I used 1 -km transects to survey animals in each patch. For mammals, 156 5x Im track recording stations were set up in each location for recording footprints. Over a 9-month period from September 1997 to June 1998 I found 9 species of mammals in Mae Tuen and 19 in Om Koi. I also found 89 species (1,238 detections) of birds in Mae Tuen and 119 (1,192) in Om Koi. Large patches (> 400 ha) with connectivity still supported large mammals, primates, and a high diversity of birds. Bird diversities were significantly greater (P = 0.011) in large patches in Om Koi than in the small patches in Mae Tuen. Large frugivorous birds such as Ill horabills were found in Om Koi but there were none in Mae Tuen. Small patches (< 100 ha) in Mae Tuen were still valuable for forest birds and virtually no penetration by clearing birds was found. Track counts gave 886 mammal tracks in Mae Tuen and 2,016 in Om Koi. Om Koi patches still support large mammals such as the Asian elephant {Elephas maximus), tiger {Panthera tigris), Asiatic black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), and sambar {Cerviis imicolor) but there were none in Mae Tuen. Three species of primates existed in Om Koi but they were virtually extinct from Mae Tuen. There were traces of a positive relationship between bird and mammal diversities and patch size. The distribution model for elephants suggests that villages in the middle of elephant seasonal migratory paths must be restricted from development and slash-and-burn cultivation to reduce the impact on elephant populations. The small population of bantengs {Bos javaniats) was confined to a small area as revealed by the distribution model. These animals need urgent and effective protection to avoid extirpation. Hunting, burning, and domestic cattle dispersing into the forest are other influences threatening wildlife in the areas. IV Examiners; Dr. P. Dearden, Supervisor (Department of Geography) Dr. C. P. Keller, Departmental Member (Department of Geography) Dr. D. A. Duffiis, Departmental Member (Department of Geography) Dr. P. T. Gregory, Outside Member (Department of Biology) Dr. U. Kutintara, External Examiner (Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University) Tables of Contents Abstract ü Table of Contents v Lists of Tables ix Lists of Figures xi Acknowledgements xv Dedication xvii CHAPTER 1 Introduction ........................................................................................... l 1.1. Research Objectives................................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 2 Wildlife Response to Habitat Fragmentation and other Human Influences: A Review ............................................................................. 5 2.1. Fragmentation and Wildlife Responses .................................................................. 5 2.1.1. Effects on Birds ........................................................................................ 9 2.1.2. Effects on Mammals ................................................................................. 10 2.2. Other Human Influences .......................................................................................... 11 2.3. Ecological Monitoring............................................................................................. 13 CHAPTER 3 Northern Thailand and the Study area ............................................. 14 3.1. Northern Thailand .................................................................................................... 14 3.2. Study Area ................................................................................................................ 16 3.2.1. Vegetation Cover...................................................................................... 16 3.2.2. Zoogeographic Significance of the Study Area ..................................... 20 3.2.3. Wildlife Records ....................................................................................... 20 3 .2.4. Human Settlements and Agricultural Practices ...................................... 22 3.2.5. Other Developments ................................................................................. 24 3.2.6. Conservation Status................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 4 Fragmentation Structure and Change between Two Montane Evergreen Forest Landscapes in Northern Thailand ...................... 27 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 27 VI 4.2. Methods .................................................................................................................... 29 4.2.1. Data Acquisition ....................................................................................... 29 4.2.2. Database Building ..................................................................................... 30 4.2.2.1. Forest Type and Land Use Maps .............................................. 30 4.2.2.2. Landscape Maps ....................................................................... 31 4.2.2.3. Montane Evergreen Forest Maps in Different Periods 31 4.2.3. Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 33 4.2.3.1. Landscape Structure .................................................................. 33 4.2.3.2. Landscape Change .................................................................... 35 4.3. Results ....................................................................................................................... 37 4.3.1. Landscape Structure .................................................................................. 37 4.3.2. Landscape Change .................................................................................... 41 4.4. Conclusions and Discussion ..................................................................................... 50 4.4.1. Landscape Structure.................................................................................. 50 4.4.2. Landscape Change ...................................................................................