<<

Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. oe aeaatdt xliaiecmeiinb pigfrdffrnillf-itr taeislk group like strategies -history differential for carni- opting subordinate by predators competitively competition apex Evolutionarily, i.e. exploitative guild. (Vance, to sized the predators adapted body dominating competing larger have 2013), with other vores Swenson, unidirectional for are & mostly available resources Bischof, is Wherein not interaction (Ordiz, 1974). are of Gilpin, & and Dickman, & (Case & This predator (Case Ritchie, indirect 1984). competition one Letnic, or exploitative by 2009; direct as Johnson, disproportionately be termed & harvested is can Ritchie form predators 1999; indirect their Soule, among The & competition understanding 2012). Crooks that 1983; without established Macdonald, been 1974; ensured has Gilpin, be it , cannot the Over that other. equilibrium, large each viable ecosystem to of thereby O’Doherty,1999), responses for safeguarding 2009) & demographic Johnson, Therefore, essential (Caro pathways. & (Ritchie is web ecosystems plants & food and terrestrial populations multiple (Palomares the to along guild down in ecosystems predatory such extend structuring carnivores the One large keystone shape 2015). of as effects that Goheen, considered ecological carnivores & Often (Ford large 1999). among functioning Caro, ecosystem competition approach interspecific intraguild and targeted how species is reveals structures single approach interaction community from holistic studies This alter biology 2000). can Strand, in interactions & shift (Linnell a approach been conservation has ecosystem there to decades, few past the In Introduction implications management of formulation the and is drives interactions triage what carnivore conservation of and optimizing translocations. question dynamics while between and age-old population helpful recovery the association to Often answer like behaviour negative study. to Linking the trying a system. to of multi-predator and with closer highlight a concurrent step size another in one are predators us assessment social and takes of study distribution-wide abundance size Our on pack prey size. results pack between low Our was association and area. densities density positive Km2) Tiger a (5.67/100 showing heterogeneity. density dhole results, tiger across higher local-scale and a size group resources (16.8 and packs in pack in predator dhole observed variability of top large was having a for assessment site of accounting distribution-wide the abundance while at a local Km2) the predator doing (0.71/100 distributed between social subordinate by relationship widely inverse our subordinate a scale an evaluated a a of larger found further of we We size form a sites, dynamics sites. at study size neighbouring Across variation pack and two countries. size the at ranging tiger variation pack understand size Dhole, to of pack attempted patterns , underlying we factors local-scale recruitment South-east investigating paper low by and this and dhole, size In South the group carnivores. predator, reduced In the large in result shape of carnivores. to actively guild known social interactions sympatric been intraguild has subordinate asymmetric in intraguild complex Intense rates space, carnivores. share social of predators size solitary group and social wherein Ecosystems Abstract 2020 21, July 2 1 Bhandari Aishwarya and availability Prey of predator effect Apex Assessing variation: size pack Dhole idieIsiueo of Institute Wildlife available not Affiliation 1 alv Ghaskadbi Pallavi , 1 ± aa Nigam Parag , .)wees eaieysalraeaedoepc ie(6.4 size pack dhole average smaller relatively a whereas, 3.1) 1 1 n ia Habib Bilal and , 2 ± 1.3) Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. n uhsmarcgido oiayadsca anvrs on nSuhes sa oet so tiger of is Asian South-east in found carnivores, social and and solitary temporal over of densities, guild ( to sympatric related such inversely One be (Cro- to studied Spotted ( 1998), been predators have Creel, scales. breeding subordinate 1999) & spatial cooperative of al., Creel and size et 2016) Creel,1996; group Droge, (Clutton-Brock & & The ) (Creel Becker, carnivores. pictus) Creel, (M’soka, social ( crocuta) in cuta intraguild sizes wild space, African group share as of predators such solitary trends and shape social often wherein Ecosystems competition 2017). ( competition Newsome, interference & golden Stoyanov, when of rovic, observed expansion ( is that predator shows pattern grey review indicate apex inverse continent-wide to Overs- high an studies recent & However, a A Helldin, ecology Lindstr¨om, 1999). removed. in Brainerd, Bryant, 1994; is classic extirpations Clark, & from face Henke 1994; even back- Mamo, 1995; evidence kaug, & the and of Armbruster, in rates (Carbyn, Shreds functioning recruitment scenario alt- always low density 2015). competition, is experience exploitative Revilla, and predator on systems & subordinate studies multi-predator Fritz, from in (Periquet, comes critical ground of is competition lack intraguild competition the interference on of hough understanding because 2000). our competition Strand, of interference & of Most (Linnell Therefore, understanding ecosystems experiments’ 2014). practical of al., ’natural and productivity et such theoretic overall Swanson of disturbance, of 2015; the replicability anthropogenic dearth Ripple, and as a & predators demonstrate, such Newsome is other along, to 2014; there Dickman, and acting easy guild & factors prey not Tamayo, predatory Wardle, of of is (Greenville, array the structure competition an community in interference involves in However, competition and alterations 2000). multifaceted of is Strand, form it & direct because (Linnell rather killing territoriality, a direct interspecific is are and competition interaction interference of interference manifestations 2000; Some hand, (Vance,1984). Durant, other Creel,1996; & the (Creel On use habitat and 2002). activity Durant, Spatio-temporal 2001; diet, Creel, in overlap reduced living, 00.Frhroe viaiiyo aia,tpgah n aia etrseii rydsrbto and distribution prey Macdonald, elicit & features (Gusset habitat abundance and prey topography and density habitat, co-predator of Alberts, is availability by Gesquiere, and (Markham, Furthermore, governed (Macdonald,1983) scale Largely spatial 2010). carnivore and of 2015). temporal characteristic over Altmann, crucial settings having & pack ecological a in areas differential is variation of variation protected this attribute size underlying neighbouring an Group factors two investigate Central . the the to of in attempted at Reserve size and Tiger dholes India Navegaon , of and Landscape, Reserve size Indian & Tiger pack Andhari Strauss Tadoba in settings, Holekamp, variation ecological Farr, similar to significant Green, studies a 2014; case long-term observed in predators Revilla, no We seen social have & as we Fritz, in dhole, far, (Periquet, size of dynamics So predators population 2019). size of Zipkin, social dhole. group function determine subordinate the that a for other factors be unaddressed of ecological remains various to understand it considered and but and (Steinmetz, assess 2020) aspect occupancy al., vital site et a (Fernandez dhole 2019). is Macdonald, in however, 2016). & size, increase Linkie, Kamler, Pack preda- significant & Kery, intraguild Rayan Rasphone, a 2013; 2013; of shown Chutipong, Chutipong, evidence have & &, 2017). shown systems Seuaturien, Seuaturien, Karanth, have depleted (Steinmetz, 2009; resources tiger carnivores Macdonald, facilitate scarce Conversely, sympatric forests & with rich the Wang Prey conditions among 2000; 1995). habitat tion Sunquist, Sunquist, sub-optimal carnivores & & (Karanth in these (Karanth spectrum between Studies carnivores diet Competition the in overlap between 2016). 2009; high Storaas, Linkie, sympatry with the & & of along Pokharel, Rayan because Odden, studied likely 2013; Wegge, is widely Chutipong, Johns- 2009; 2007; Macdonald, &, been (Acharya, & Seuaturien, have carnivores Wang three Steinmetz, 2000; dholes the Sunquist, (Steinmetz, subcontinent among & interactions guild Indian Karanth sympatric asymmetric ingh,1992; the understand an to In , forming and predators, 2013). intermediate Chutipong, are & leopard Seuaturien, and dhole whereas predators ateatigris ai lupus ,doe( dhole ), xemntosi uoedet escto yhmn.(rfl inao,Ci- Giannatos, (Krofel, . by persecution to due in exterminations ) unalpinus Cuon n epr ( leopard and ) 2 ateapardus Panthera .Tgr r osdrdt etop be to considered are Tigers ). ai aureus Canis uiaasuricata Suricata saresponse a as ) Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. nEsenVdrh adcp.Istsoigsuyae oaini h a fIndia. of map the in Reserve location NagziraTiger area Navegaon study and showing Reserve Inset Tiger Landscape. Andhari Tadoba Eastern showing in Map 1. Figure the form dhole 2013). and al., leopard et Tiger, (Dhanwatey species ( hills. prey rounded and and sites ( valleys study Teak shallow the tragocamelus) in with 1968). guild predatory Seth, mostly major & is type (Champion by September. other. terrain deciduous to winter. followed each The dry June and from species from tropical monsoon, km dominant persisting Southern ~85 summer, mm) the is of seasons- (1100-1500 type distance distinct rainfall biogeographic a with three the The at monsoons N) with to southwest 80.39064 located according climate receive to zone are subtropical Reserves N Plateau and The Deccan 79.69802 experience the 1988) and sites and in Panwar, E are study E & 21.44738 sites The to 20.51695 (Rodgers study E the to India (20.86209 Both of E NNTR area. Landscape classification (19.95428 and in Reserve TATR km2 Tiger (core) Tiger 625 km2 Andhari Vidarbha 1). is 656 Tadoba is (Figure N) Eastern the 79.73494 (NNTR) were; the to Reserve sites N in Two Tiger 79.12749 The sites Nagzira Landscape. neighbouring Navegaon Tiger two and Indian (TATR) at Central greater conducted the primarily within was study The AREA STUDY vice-versa. prey 2.1. and by sizes Hypothesis: determined pack Materials: are low 3. and Prediction: to sizes abundance. Methods 2005). correspond pack Garrott, prey will & low higher ( ruggedness predators are to high density correlate are with dholes positively Areas tiger subordinate as will size When smaller of pack show size dhole influences size will pack ruggedness Hypothesis: across Terrain density pack Dhole size tiger affects 2. pack higher Prediction: negatively with of vice-versa. abundance. density Areas assessment and predator Prediction: distribution-wide sizes apex 2017). a elucidate Jackson, pack High doing further & by we Lannas, Hypothesis: reserves, scale (Groom, two carnivores wider 1. the a 2000). at York, countries. at dholes & of ranging patterns Sauvajot, variation Fuller, scale Fedriani, size local pack 2005; with Garrott, our linked & (White factors investigating time After and place given a at rate encounter idpg( pig wild , u scrofa Sus emnlatomentosa Terminalia ,gu ( ), o gaurus) Bos xsaxis) Axis 3 akn er( barking , and abr( sambar , aesrei parviflora Lagerstroemia uaunicolor) Rusa utau ) Muntiacus etn grandis) Tectona igi( , ntesuysites. study the in r h major the are Boselaphus is Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. apigapoc a sd(adok&Gl,21) yuigdoepc iea aeieifrainfrom information baseline as snowball size Subsequently, unique pack 24 2020). dhole Oli, using to by & belonged 2011), Sharma, assessments Gile, also (Srivathsa, were & 34 review sites (Handcock unique diet These used these dhole was of published 18 dholes. approach recently sampling of from Asia. the South-east assessments size and of South scientific pack part in 34 average a countries ranging “Cuon in reported dhole keywords across resulted had the areas search using protected that dholes, Our 2018 of to size “Pack-size”. pack 1973 “Mean”, on size: scale “Average”, literature pack scientific “Dhole”, spatial for dhole alpinus”, on searched of we based assessment scholar km google distribution-wide Through 7 for sources of using Data buffer 2013) a) a Team, 2.5. laid Core we (R SECR, ( (3.5.3) density R In for program 2019). selected in Efford, out approach & ( carried likelihood (Efford detection was maximum (3.2.1) using analysis framework ”secr” The SECR package 2008). in Efford, estimated was & density (Borchers tiger sites: in captures, 13440 study photo n= across Using and TATR Tiger in of 9144 estimation closure. (n= demographic days study the 30 to ensure b) of of to sources probability kept period water capture 1 was closing and and between nights) A area junctions Trap was sampling 1990). NNTR the at stations Hines, in & camera trails, coverage Brownie, the spatial the Nichols, between ensure of (Pollock, to Distance sides km 1998). 1.5 both Nichols., to km & on km standard (Karanth 2 stationed following captures of were carnivores photo size traps maximize of grid camera densities survey, A sites estimate sign 1998). study the to Nichols., across done & density was (Karanth tiger protocols in camera Variation based method: Capture-recapture Analytical ( and density Field individual a) model, and 2.4. selected judge species the to the used on al., were this, Based et tests Following (GOF-p) model. binned (Thomas separately. ( were goodness-of-fit the observations and 6.2 species of or Criterion each version fit dropped Information Akaike for was the program none sites fit. almost Distance model both were achieve using sightings from to which calculated data beyond distances the was at examined observations species first the We all 2010). of sites finders, study density range across laser Individual species using distance NNTR, of sighting and TATR transects. Estimation angular in online b) put every and made was of were compass km location sightings system) 984 using vegetation whenever and positioning all recorded (global km of the was GPS 950 coverage composition, of of spatial and effort bearing size ensure Survey two group observation, to the length. species, framework at km for densities random 2 Data prey stratified of respectively. estimate were a to transects in used All laid was types. were 2001) study al., transects across et Line density (Buckland sites. sampling and distance composition based prey transect Line in Variation method: to Analytical included and not sites Field were boundaries a) pack overlapping 2.3. at packs. sightings the activity The between range/ hotspots. confusion home activity avoided core their at the recorded that Unpublished). only suggests km understnading sites 1 The al. from study signs. ranges our et indirect pack identified at concentrated and dhole study pattern and trapping for hotspots camera centres pelage activity from through basis uniform pack’s patterns sites the of movement study their on surveyed basis of identification We of the pack 2014). on to because centres al., adhered challenging activity we et therefore (Stansbury is centres 2019), dholes activity Mondol, of & of Nigam, identification Ghaskadbi, Habib, individual (Modi, studies field In 2.2 g eedrvdfrec species. each for derived were Dg) ˆ .) il n nltclmto:Doepc ievrainars td sites study across variation size pack Dhole method: Analytical and Field σ rudorcmr rpmti.Tebs-tmdlbsdo h oetACvlewsthen was value AIC lowest the on based model best-fit The matrix. trap camera our around ) D . ˆ ,cpuepoaiiya ciiycne (g center activity at probability capture ), hrfr,bsdo u bevtoso ciiyhtpt,sgtnso ak were packs of sightings hotspots, activity of observations our on based Therefore, 2 o1 km 11 to 2 ..teae xlsv oapc’ ertr (Ghaskadbi pack’s a to exclusive area the i.e. 4 ² a sdfrcmr rppaeet ae on Based placement. trap camera for used was ο ,adsailsaeo eeto ( detection of scale spatial and ), i)adetmtso ru density group of estimates and ) Di ˆ σ ). Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ieec a on ewe h aksz fTT n NR( 30,pvle=00)(iue2). NNTR (Figure significant and 0.02) TATR The A = from Packs. p-value respectively. size -3.05, NNTR NNTR, pack = for dhole and (t 28 TATR NNTR of to for and Comparison 10 TATR (3.1) and of 2. Packs 16.8 size TATR Figure pack and for the (1.3) 12 between hotspots. 6.4 to found activity 7 was was exclusive from difference size their ranged on pack pack based average NNTR a reported form in packs individuals five of and TATR Number from packs seven identified We (R R program variation in size performed Pack was were averaging 3.1. analyses Model All criteria. selection. weight model Results: cumulative top 95% on 2014). and Team, based Core evidence parameters Development ( of for models, strength out hypothesis, AIC 1/8 carried between our Royall’s difference Information on using on Akaike’s based done based using parameters was compared were selection model fits Model for Model corresponding tested of only). We significance (Intercept (AIC model analysis. corrected null predictor Criterion the to the them dropped for all and compared family elevational predictors on and (PA), ”gaussian” among data area correlations used which sites protected for checked we the unique for We (r of 24 PA. (n=29) ones size the from correlated studies density, of the reported ungulate those ruggedness size and terrain only density pack and used tiger heterogeneity dhole We i.e., of available correlates were range. variables examine distribution to dhole models across et linear (Gorelick generalized engine protected used earth the We of google size through and areas ) protected assessment 24 b) same of or topography closest the the on 2017). (of data a., data density collate obtained to prey We referred with were area. assessments along these density within tiger cited Literature on assessments. conducted previously the nltclmethods: Analytical > .) ro oaayi.Atrsreigfrnra itiuino epnevariable, response of distribution normal for screening After analysis. to prior 0.6), C ,adteeeto aaeeswsgue ae ndrcinadstatistical and direction on based gauged was parameters of effect the and ), β- offiins eue MMn akg o oe eeto n averaging. and selection model for package ”MuMIn” used We coefficients. 5 Δ AIC < ) ute,mdlslcinwas selection model Further, 2). Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ιυε3 ηων λ η ινφςν ν ο-ινφςν ρδςο αιβε ωιτη vαριαβλες πρεδιςτορ vαλυε νον-σιγνιφιςαντ ςονφιδενςε ανδ 95% σιγνιφιςαντ ατ τηε vαλυες ςοεφφιςιεντ αλλ β Σηοωινγ 3. Φιγυρε 3, tiger (Table of models association negative best a two variable. found (0.01 top response we density the 6) the Figure with prey*tiger model be 4, and (Table the to size models achieved density, top pack models two prey the two and averaging (-0.89 top On density density a The 5). tiger ran & 3). of We 4 Figure effect Figure ruggedness. 2, interactive terrain (Table and with models density correlation elevational interactive high of dropped and We PA, criterion its additive variables. selection of of predictor 10 area because all density, of variables among ungulate total predictor density, correlation heterogeneity the elevational tiger for PA, as checked and of heterogeneity and (Size variable variables ruggedness) response predictor terrain scaled the We and variables. as predictor size as ruggedness pack terrain respectively. dhole NNTR, average and size: TATR used pack in We in dhole 689 km tigers and of 100 71 68 assessment per km was density of Distribution-wide 100 dholes Tiger 3.4. per total of rate. density A captures estimated capture photo The the NNTR. specific TATR. of with in gender in number model (0.69) in captures heterogeneity The 5.67 difference The be photo on images. to 211 trap based found camera chosen was and through TATR was identified value in were AIC NNTR tigers lowest in of tigers the 8 captures was and TATR photo chital 452 of density sites got density Gaur study We the 1). TATR, across (Table density In deer predator NNTR. barking (0.76). Large in and 4.68 3.3. 4.61(1.2) sambar gaur, chital by pig, by followed wild followed (1.22) 5.10 highest nilgai, highest sambar, the chital, (1.41) were 5.21 sites was study the km 100 both sites: per study density prey across Total density and composition Prey 3.2. ± .3 .1 n oiieascaino rydniy(0.09 density prey of association positive a and 0.01) = p 0.33, Δ AICc < ² .Uo oe eeto efud diieeeto ie est n prey and density tiger of effect additive found, we selection model Upon 2. a eotda 69 nNT n 92 nTT.Mjrpe pce in species prey Major TATR. in 19.28 and NNTR in 16.94 as reported was ± .,p=.8 a o infiatbtsilepandterelation the explained still but significant not was =0.18) p 0.0, 6 ² o ie nNT a .1(0.24). 0.71 was NNTR in tiger for ± .3 00)wt the with =0.03) p 0.03, ² Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. iue5 hl aksz nrsos ope est ae ndsrbto ieassessment wide distribution on based density prey to response in size pack Dhole 5. Figure assessment wide distribution on based density tiger to response in size pack Dhole 4. Figure 7 Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ans ako,21) iia rn a enosre nsotdheaca ieadpc ieof size pack and size clan spotted in observed (Groom, been scenario release has competitive trend a similar of A indicative instances is certain 2017). size in pack Jackson, larger and & area, dogs Lannas, documented density away no been tiger chase however, have low actively events in 5) Conversely, Similar where (n= (1996), site. dholes site density Creel them. killing density tiger and kill tiger low tigers Creel even high the by At dogs NNTR, system i.e. wild 2017). in African events African Jackson, observed in to predation of & which been due sizes intraguild Lannas, have occupy pack be events direct (Groom, to where might such densities observed trend dholes This lion also similar for higher areas. a we available of density show (TATR) is areas also tiger niche in higher narrower reduced from in were a Studies reduced wherein was persistence. competition size their limits pack interference the of that influence of found the understanding apex we charismatic holistic study, conserving A this while crucial In species. triage is flagship ecological it predators. optimize and dhole, mid-ranking to endangered endangered and ability an the predators our itself conserve Linkie, improve tigers, & to would (Rayan interactions to Therefore, dholes guild response 2019). like its predators Jhala, shared understand subordinate & over- (Steinmetz, to also in for Qureshi, result interactions detrimental Awasthi, are further intra-guild be can Kumar, patches efforts and lethal conservation 2016; habitat lopsided densities is by and carnivore PAs remnant dholes population of apex size These of dhole inflated Small agro-forest persistence limiting 2013). and Chutipong, 2019). thereby India, forests & carnivores, Seuaturien, Oli, secondary In intra-guild large from & and records other 2015). persecution Kumar, presence by al., infrequent Karanth, loss, et with habitat (Srivathsa, kamler range areas base, plantations distributional protected 2014; prey past to in Habib, its 949-2215 confined decline of & only mostly to 60% Lyngdoh, about due from population exterminated 2010) (Hayward, with dhole been al., competition IUCN, viable has et by the species (Karanth the of India category However, majority in “Endangered” 2015). harbors setup. under al., subcontinent experiment et listed Indian natural (Kamler a globally. is in surviving dhole the predator individuals understand / social mature to inferior wild opportunity competitively predator an Asiatic on subordinate got The We predator for evidence systems. apex study of solitary experiment dearth a natural a of through such is impact structure of there lack community However, to mesopredator 2014). due suppress suppression al., and et (Ripple population mechanisms prey top-down ςονφιδενςε harvests actively 95% predator ατ Apex vαλυες ςοεφφιςιεντ β ωιτη παραμετερς Discussion μοδελ Αvεραγε 6. Φιγυρε 8 Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ec,peain lpoaaiimeet n erimn aeo hls cosagain fae predator apex of top gradient of a growth preva- across the hypothesis. disease dholes, limit our data, of to validate pack-year advantageous rate further multiple decision more recruitment would on The be and density based niche. to events wider suggested going kleptoparasitism of are is predation, availability packs studies lence, and small long-term predator subordinate to future social apex compared However, a of as predator. of density packs and size low large interact pack of carnivores form increased outcome tropical to the an endangered that two is comparable suggest these (dhole) We a how predator shift. are TATR study and to of NNTR sympa- us consequences 1993). other allows understand Chapman, of that densities & setup drives Gittleman, dhole. experiment that (Wrangham, of factors natural system size major a pack the in of limit carnivores a one tric potentially remains provides Gupta, also carnivores study dominant Mondal, can Our from 2011; competition 2013). Competition intra-guild Goyal, Chutipong, how & & understanding Pandav, Seuaturien, in density (Harihar, Steinmetz, direction reduced 2012; predators new in et Sankar, result subordinate (Karanth & competition the sympatry Qureshi, intra-guild Bhattacharjee, of facilitate intense that displacement to availability demonstrated Studies spatial have resource (Johnsingh,1992). and studies other on Lyngdoh, few adapt each Very (Hayward, depending carnivores to 2017). that partitioning, spectrum linked suggest al, niche surveys diet is occupancy of similar area and mechanisms trapping an of camera to in as because such persistence guild sampling non-invasive their carnivore on therefore based same Pole, and the 1999; 2014), to Habib, Ginsberg, 2019). & & belong Zipkin, Woodroffe & dhole 1998; Strauss, and Creel, Holekamp, Tiger Farr, & associated Green, Creel negatively 2015; 1996; and Revilla, Creel, of resources & & P´eriquet, size Fritz, food (Creel 2000; group of numbers the availability predator where with are apex , from associated studies Reserve, with, density 2016). positively long-term other Droge, are co-predator Selous in & predators and observed and Becker, been subordinate Area have Creel, Conservation abundance, that (M’soka, Ngorongoro trends hypothesis Park, behavior composition, to the adhere National and prey also of size study support as this group of in structure, such Patterns are community settings carnivore results assessment of ecological drivers wide low specific distribution a area and however, level that ruggedness Poudyal, reserve 2014). Bhattacharya, terrain Habib, our (Bashir, high & terrain together, Selvan, rugged Taken with and Gopi, support associated altitude Lyngdoh, find high not 2014; of not Sathyakumar, settings, was studies did & from We size ecological Roy, reported pack 2015). been specific other regional has dhole Ripple, at area size each & hypothesis, pack landscape to mirror Newsome, the third scale. 2014; in pertaining always our global Dickman, connectivity 2020), not for and & at Tamayo, level do al., Wardle, reserve diffused (Greenville, numbers at et were protection scale (Jachowski predators of patterns scales level apex disturbances, the densities. spatial to anthropogenic hypotheses, tiger that and two response with reflects first temporal associated predator our size over negatively distribution-wide subordinate for and effect a density of support did moderate prey found Patterns we with but We scale, associated significant range. positively global Statistically distributional were with dhole size concurrent pack across were dhole size patterns pack Fifield, level of Gullage, reserve assessment (Lewis, whether individuals examine larger To down take ( cannot 2017). wolf and Mahoney, where & size-limited systems Jennings, of are study one in be since idea The observed might population the system. is this with a and pattern line in prey Similar in prey latrans large is large-bodied such finding. finding of target our This abundance cannot for lupus in and explanations note. increase body-size to possible an by interesting the to limited also lead are is predator higher predators NNTR the apex subordinate however, in of studies, prey numbers both low size at densities that Groom, large-body prey 2019; a individual the Zipkin, of between of density & difference availability significant Strauss, easy no Holekamp, and was Farr, There system Green, depleted 2014; lion 2017). a Revilla, Jackson, in & & competition Fritz, Lannas, interspecific (Periquet, reduced subsidies to food due dog wild African ouain r otold(ugr utn ihr 09 htntol asscyt ( causes only not that 2019) , & Burton, (Burgar, controlled are populations ) bnac oices u lolast tbenme faut ncrbu( caribou in adults of number stable to leads also but increase to abundance ) 9 agfrtarandus Rangifer Canis Canis ) Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eiut . rt,H n eil,E,21.TeLo igadteHan ue:lrecarnivore large Queen: the and King Lion The 2015. E., lions. Revilla, by suppression and coexistence. of and H. and interactions patterns Fritz, E. contrasting Masenga, S., show M., Periquet, dogs Borner, wild D.W., and Macdonald, M.G., ecology animal Mills, 2014. H., Davies-Mostert, C., cascades. Packer, T., trophic Caro, A., coexistence: Swanson, Carnivore 2015. 10.1126/science.347.6220.383-a W.J., DOI: Ripple, pp.383-383. and T.M. processes Newsome, top-down and Bottom-up environments. as resource-pulse 2014. in dynamics C.R., https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-2977-8 interactions Dickman, intraguild population and modify carnivore to B. Tamayo, interact on G.M., Wardle, competition A.C., of Greenville, effect the modifying 1739.2001.99534.x dogs. factors wild Four African by illustrated 2001. carnivores. S., Serengeti from Creel, example an coexistence: Serengeti. and the ecology refuges in Animal cheetahs Competition by 1998. lions S.M., and Durant, hyenas preda- of avoidance apex enemy: the the ecology carnivores. with havioral larger Living losing with 2000. competition but S.M., by Durant, dogs carnivores, wild African large of Saving Limitation Biology 1996. servation N.M., 2013. Creel, and J.E., S. limiting Creel, single Swenson, a and on R. competitors tor?. two Bischof, of A., coexistence Ordiz, the and competition the Interference resource. regulators: 1984. biodiversity R.R., as Vance, predators Top study. 2012. case C.R., a sys- 185X.2011.00203.x as Dickman, fragmented dingo a and lupus in E.G. Canis extinctions Ritchie, avifaunal M., and Letnic, release Mesopredator 3;301(5899):379-84. 1999. Feb M.E., 1983 tem. Soule, Nature. and behaviour. K.R. social Crooks, carnivore of ecology theory. The niche DW. and Macdonald competition Interference 1974. Sciences M.E., of Academy Gilpin, and conser- biodiversity T.J. and Case, release mesopredator interactions, Predator biology. 2009. conservation vation. C.N., in Johnson, species and surrogate E.G. Ritchie, of use the carnivores. On mammalian 1999. G., biology among O’Doherty, and killing T.M. and Interspecific Caro, inference strong 1999. for T.M., case a Caro, Naturalist and carnivores: large F. by Palomares, cascades Trophic 2015. J.R., mechanism. Goheen, and A.T. Ford, car- mammalian of conservation and co-existence interactions, Interference nivores. 2000. O., Strand, and J.D. Linnell, Reference BiologicalConservation Nature clg letters Ecology , iest n Distributions and Diversity 13 Ecology , 153 rnsi clg & Ecology in Trends 4,p.0-1.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98338.x pp.805-814. (4), , 400 , , , 83 5,p.9-0.https://doi.org/10.1086/303189 pp.492-508. (5), 67 11 , , 64) p5356 https://doi.org/10.1038/23028 pp.563-566. (6744), 65 10 6,p.4812.https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12231 pp.1418-1427. (6), 3,p.7-8.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.00202.x pp.370-386. (3), 6,p.2-3.https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/11.6.624 pp.624-632. (6), , 5,p.3915.https://doi.org/10.2307/1939115 pp.1349-1357. (5), , 2,p.2-3.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020526.x pp.526-538. (2), 71 12 8,p.0337.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.71.8.3073 pp.3073-3077. (8), 9,p.8-9.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01347.x pp.982-998. (9), , ilgclreviews Biological 168 osrainBiology Conservation p.2-3.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.024 ,pp.128-133. ilgclReviews Biological , 6 4,p.6-7.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00069.x pp.169-176. (4), , 30 1) p7575 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.09.012 pp.725-735. (12), , 90 10 4,p.1711.https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12152 pp.1197-1214. (4), , , 87 15 2,p.9-1.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469- pp.390-413. (2), 1,p.7-7.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523- pp.271-274. (1), Oecologia rceig fteNational the of Proceedings , 175 Science 4,pp.1349-1358. (4), h American The , Conservation 347 ora of Journal ora of Journal (6220), Con- Be- Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aat,KU,Siaha . aue,D,Pr,M,Prmswrn .adKumar, and resource R. a Parameshwaran, across M., sympatry carnivore Puri, large D., facilitate competi- interactions Vasudev, in Spatio-temporal forests. A., tropical species in dhole Srivathsa, flagship and 2017. leopard conservation tiger, N.S., K.U., by . Managing selection Prey Karanth, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.009 in pp.439-450. 1995. Ecology, dhole Animal M.E., of Sunquist, Journal 2016. and and K.U. Karanth, M., leopard leop- tigers, Linkie, of Tiger, study https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.009 and case . a tion: Park, D.M. areas: National protected responses Rayan, Bardia and of relationships in establishment Predator–prey the prey to 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.020 their T., predators and Storaas, their ards and and C.P. Pokharel, . of central M., in Odden, ecosystem P., Wegge, temperate composed a guild in predator a dholes https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00537.x in partitioning and pp.275-283. niche leopards and habits Feeding tigers, ), 2009. of (Panthera D.W., tiger India. Macdonald, and by Nagarahole, S.W. Wang, predation in of alpinus) correlates (Cuon Behavioural https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2000.tb01076.x dhole and pp.255-265. 2000. pardus) Bandipur. M.E., (Panthera in Sunquist, leopard carnivores and sympatric K.U. large Reserve, Karanth, three Tiger Pench in in https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1992.56.4.517 selection alpinus) pp.517-526. Prey (Cuon (4), dog 1992. wild A.J.T., Asiatic Johnsingh, or dhole the of ecology Pradesh. Madhya The 2007. forest: B.B., half-empty carnivores. Acharya, a threatened in dholes of and guild leopards, cooperative a Tigers, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.016 in a 2013. interactions W., in species Chutipong, mortality and assessing N. and Seuaturien, size R., Manser, Steinmetz, group P., Predation, Chadwick, R., 1999. Kansky, P.N.M., 2656.1999.00317x A.D.C., Brotherton, suricatta. Maccoll, Suricata and , G.M., J.D. McIlrath, Skinner, D., M., ecosys- Gaynor, depleted savannahs. lion T.H., African a in Clutton-Brock, carnivores in https://doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.011 large density 348–355. between and competition 201, survival and hyaena Conserv. humans availability, Spotted Italian prey Biol. 2016 of E. Hystrix: effects Droge The MS, persecution?. tem: Becker wolf S, continent-wide Creel by J, M’soka triggered https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-28.1-11819 release pp.9-15. mesopredator 28(1), mammalogy, of of case journal a Europe: G., in Giannatos, Texas. western M., in community Krofel, faunal the on Management removal coyote Wildlife Zoological of Effects of Finnish Journal 1999. 123-130). —red F.C., Bryant, (pp. Pine and fennici S.E. Henke, January. zoologici Annales 1995, In Board. K., Publishing Overskaug, predation?. Botanical intraguild and of and of J.O. Restoration case Helldin, a overview. S.M., 20-year interactions: a Brainerd, E.R., : Lindstrom, black-footed endangered the pp.272-297. of from species, Restoration Canada endangered in 1994. program pp.247-271. reintroduction T.W., species, fox Clark, endangered swift of The Restoration 1994. 1992. C., to Mamo, 1983 and H.J. Armbruster, L.N., Carbyn, nulse h israin arstaUiest,Rjo,India Rajkot, University, Saurashtra Dissertation. PhD Unpublished ioic . tynv .adNwoe .. 07 odnjca expansion Golden 2017. T.M., Newsome, and S. Stoyanov, Ciroviˇc, D., ´ ora fAia Ecology Animal of Journal pp.1066-1081. , 11 ilgclConservation Biological , ilgclConservation Biological 68 4,p.7-8.hts/ doi:10.1046/j.1365- https:// pp.672-683. (4), ilgclconservation Biological ora fZoology of Journal ora fZoology of Journal , , 142 204 . , 1,pp.189-202. (1), Mammalia 163 pp.360-366. , pp.68-78. , , , 250 277 , The (2), (4), 56 Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. re,DS,Fr,MT,Hlkm,KE,Srus ..adZpi,EF,21.Cnheabhvorprovide behaviour hyena carnivores?. Can sympatric 2019. of E.F., B trends Zipkin, and and population E.D. on A. Strauss, information K.E., population. Holekamp, Ordiz, wolf M.T., Farr, M., Iberian D.S., Green, Gabriel, the landscapes: de humanized J., in Naves, https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00594 size (2). Pack Nu˜no, A., 2020. L.M., E., Et-Phou Barrientos, Revilla, and Nam area: M., tiger protected Quevedo, of prized most Fern´andez-Gil, demise A., PDR’s the Lao in Documenting prey, and 2019. carnivores D.W., other Louey. of Macdonald, status and the and J.F. leopard, Kamler, K´ery, M., A., Rasphone, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.009doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.1860 gradient. us ..adBrhm .. 00 itnesfwr:dsg n nlsso itnesmln surveys sampling Mar- distance of J.R., analysis Bishop, and S.L., design Hedley, software: S., size. Distance Strindberg, population 2010. J.L., estimating K.P., Laake, for Burnham, E.A., and Intro- Rexstad, T.A. 2001. S.T., ques, of populations. L., pp.11-20. Buckland, biological Thomas, diet L., 69(1), of and and Thomas, abundance D.L. Mammalia, estimating Borchers, ecology J.L., sampling: Laake, Spatial distance . K.P., to Burnham, central duction D.R., 2005. north Anderson, S.T., K., in Buckland, Kreetiyutanont, ) and (, pp.1040-1049. N.J. alpinus 78(6), https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.2005.002 Silvy, Cuon Management, Wildlife dhole M.E., of the Tewes, Journal sampling L.I., The genetic Grassman, USA. noninvasive Idaho, carnivore: in 2014. wide-ranging L.P., sites Waits, a rendezvous and https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.736 for M.W. wolf Pennell, approach gray C.R., monitoring of Miller, population C.M., 7, a Mack, long-term PeerJ, P., of alpinus). A Zager, validation (Cuon D.E., and dog Ausband, Standardization C.R., wild Stansbury, 2019. Asiatic S., the identify Mondol, Reser- individually and https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7453 P. to Tiger p.e7453. Tadoba-Andhari microsatellites Nigam, P., cross-species the Ghaskadbi, of from B., panel study Habib, case S., a Modi, India: 2013. central C., in Sillero-Zubiri, humans and C.K. ve. on Nielsen, attacks P.H., Dhanwatey, carnivore L.A., Large Abade, J.C., Crawford, H.S., Dhanwatey, 1968. S.K., Seth, and H.G. Champion, Forest. New India of classification Biogeographical 1988. . S.H., Panwar, and W.A. Rodgers, restoration. wolf after Yellowstone Northern , 2005. dogs. R.A., wild Garrott, high- African and P.J. breeding a White, cooperatively in in effects size size Group Behaviour group 2010. mal D.W., Optimal Macdonald, and 2015. M. Gusset, J., Altmann, and S.C. ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.009 . Alberts, social L.R., ly Gesquiere, A.C., Markham, aat,KU n ihl,JD,19.Etmto ftgrdniisi ni sn htgahccaptures photographic using India in densities tiger of Estimation 1998. recaptures. J.D., and Nichols, and K.U. Karanth, 2664.2009.01737.x 33 , Oryx 374 3,p.4-5.https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[942:NYEAWR]2.0.CO;2 pp.942-955. (3), lblEooyadConservation and Ecology Global 18) .0802 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.009doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0052 p.20180052. (1781), , 47 rceig fteRylSceyB ilgclSciences Biological B: Society Royal the of Proceedings 2,p.2-2.https://doi:10.1017/S0030605311001803 pp.221-227. (2), , Ecology 79 2,p.2-2.https://doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.021 pp.425-428. (2), rceig fteNtoa cdm fSciences of Academy National the of Proceedings , 79 8,pp.2852-2862. (8), ora fApidEcology Applied of Journal eie uvyo h oettpso India of types forest the of survey revised A , 20 .076 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00766 p.e00766. , 12 hlspia rnatoso h oa Society Royal the of Transactions Philosophical , 47 1,p.-4 https://doi:10.1111/j.1365- pp.5-14. (1), , 112 , 284 4) p182187 htt- pp.14882-14887. (48), aae fpublications. of Manager . idieSceyBulletin Society Wildlife idieBiology Wildlife 14) p.20161860. (1848), er u,India Dun, Dehra , 2020 Ani- Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. fteEdnee hl unapnsi h iheeainEsenHmlynhbtt fKhangchendzonga of Himalayan Eastern elevation status high Precarious the in 2014. alpinus S., Cuon Sathyakumar, dhole and Endangered M. Roy, the Identifying K., of Poudyal, 2020. T., Review, Bhattacharya, A., Mammal T.A.W.Q.I.R., Williams, Bashir, America. pp.122-132. North and from S., 81(1), evidence Harris, of Management, review L., a Wildlife Gigliotti, https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12207 systems: Y.Y., of multi-predator Robin in in- Journal release Eng, mesopredator A., The black multiple Butler, of D.S., considering Manipulations survival. Jachowski, 2017. of calf S.P., Mahoney, caribou importance and affect D.H. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21174 The risk. coyote Jennings, D.A., and at Fifield, S.E., 2019. species Gullage, K.P., J.T., Lewis, of Fisher, conservation of and ecology for and https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13233 A.C. demography species the on Burton, teracting lions of J.M., impact The Burgar, 2017. tiger C.R., dogs. Jackson, increase wild and African that endangered K. strategies Lannas, conservation R.J., leopards?. Do Groom, like 2019. carnivores Y., wild Jhala, other and for https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51213-w Q. consequences Qureshi, have N., populations India. Awasthi, in U., alpi- metapopulation inform Kumar, dynamics alpinus uon distribution Cuon (C from Insights dhole dholes 2019. a https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39293-0 of M.K., conserve Oli, preferences and to N.S. prey strategies Kumar, and K.U., guild. Karanth, predator Diet A., Srivathsa, apex sia’s 2014. A B., within Habib, https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12171 competition and dietary S. nus): Lyngdoh, M.W., ark: Hayward, shrinking The 2010. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0171 N.L., India. The Jr, in pp.1971-1979. Christensen extinctions alpinus. (1690), and mammal Cuon J.E. large Hines, 2015. of K.U., patterns K., Karanth, T5953A72477893. Kunkel, J.D., e. Nichols, and K.K., 2015: L. Karanth, Species Sheng, Threatened A., of Srivathsa, List largest K., world’s Red Jenks, the IUCN N., of effects Songsasen, ecological J.F., Elmha- and Kamler, Status J., Berger, 2014. M., O.J., Earth Hebblewhite, Schmitz, and Google E.G., M.P. Ritchie, carnivores. Nelson, C.C., M., 2017. Wilmers, Letnic, R.L., R., B., Beschta, gen, Moore, J.A., Estes, and W.J., D. Ripple, Thau, S., everyone. Ilyushchenko, for https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 analysis M., geospatial Dixon, Planetary-scale M., Engine: Hancher, sampling. snowball N., of links Gorelick, concept of the On assessment Comment: Range-wide 2011. prey: K.J., ology carnivore. Gile, its endangered and has an M.S. Handcock, dog for interactions Every human Environment Total and 2020. The depredation M.K., of Oli, patterns, and diet S. between Sharma, A., ‘secr’. Srivathsa, Package 2019 MM. Efford M, capture–recapture Efford for methods likelihood maximum explicit capture-recapture Spatially for 2008. studies. inference M.G., Statistical Efford, and 1990. D.L. Borchers, J.E., Hines, and C. Brownie, experiments. J.D., Nichols, K.H., Pollock, , 41 Biometrics 1,p.6-7.https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9531.2011.01243.x pp.367-371. (1), Science idiemonographs Wildlife , , 343 64 2,p.7-8.https://doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00927.x pp.377-385. (2), 66) DOI:10.1126/science.1241484 (6167). , 714 nmlConservation Animal .378 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136798 p.136798. , pp.3-97. , rceig fteRylSceyB ilgclSciences Biological B: Society Royal the of Proceedings , 13 20 4,p.8-9.https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12328 pp.382-390. (4), eoesnigo Environment of sensing Remote osrainBiology Conservation ora fZoology of Journal cetfi reports Scientific cetfi reports Scientific , , 33 294 oilgclMethod- Sociological 3,pp.709-715. (3), , , 4,pp.255-266. (4), , 202 9 9 1,pp.1-12. (1), 1,pp.1-8. (1), pp.18-27. , Science , 277 Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. o0Nl oe .8 AN AN AN 7.9144 14 .00 0.041 0.00 0.00 0.052 11.41 12.67 164.44 165.70 0.00 0.161 -79.99 0.031 15.04 -79.37 2 168.07 0.01 3 0.00 0.064 -79.20 8.82 15.70 0.194 4 161.84 168.72 0.00 0.00 -77.44 -79.53 14.69 10.33 167.71 3 4 163.35 0.476 0.202 -79.02 0.436 -76.84 4 0.37 0.00 4 0.56 10.07 NA 0.81 NA 0.00 163.09 153.83 153.02 -76.71 -70.61 NA -71.68 4 5 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -0.379 NA 0.458 NA 0.05 NA -0.453 NA 0.011 NA NA 4.98 NA -1.523 NA NA 158.00 1.146 -71.09 -1.311 NA -0.228 -1.162 6 -0.393 NA NA NA -0.721 1.146 -1.878 NA -0.228 -1.757 R NA weight NA 0.034 NA NA delta 0.044 -1.878 AICc NA NA NA logLik NA 8.286 7.157 3.526 df NA NA NA Prey.density:Tiger.density 11.306 NA Tiger.density 0.031 NA Terrain.rug 10.191 NA Terrain.rug 15.950 -0.722 NA Reserve.size 9.296 Prey.density (Intercept) 0.066 NA -1.309 0.106 12.986 9.450 -0.085 8.385 AIC criteria Following weight -0.085 selection cumulative Model ruggedness 3. Terrain Table + size size PA PA + density ruggedness Prey Terrain + density 0.102 Prey mod8 density Prey mod7 model size Null PA 10.793 + mod5 density ruggedness Tiger Terrain ruggedness + mod10 Terrain density + Tiger size PA mod0 + density density Tiger Prey + mod6 density density Tiger Prey * mod4 density density Tiger Prey + mod9 density Tiger mod1 mod2 mod3 Models 5.21 ID Model criterion information Following 0.6 selection Model 3.12 1.99 2. Table 1.41 4.61 deer Barking Gaur pig Wild Nilgai Sambar Chital Maharashtra, TATR, and Species NNTR Prey from species prey various of density and Individual India in 1. size competition. Table group exploitation on of to assays Constraints leopards as 1993. day-range of the Sociobiology and C.A., Response density Chapman, to population and 2012. carnivores: J.L. pardus K., Gittleman, Panthera R.W., Sankar, Wrangham, and leopard Q. of India. Qureshi, Western Reserve, Responses S., servation Tiger Sariska Bhattacharjee, in S., tigers population. re-introduced Gupta, 2011. K., tigris S.P., Mondal, Panthera Goyal, tiger and a https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01981.x B. of Pandav, recovery Research, A., Wildlife of Journal Harihar, European communities, India. ethnic Pradesh, among https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-014-0846-8 Arunachal interactions of in pp.771-780. Effect alpinus) 60(5), (Cuon 2014. dogs B., wild Habib, and and K.M. livestock Selvan, G.V., https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200049X Gopi, pp.125-132. S., Lyngdoh, 48(1), Oryx, India. , Reserve, Biosphere , 4 , 5,p.2-3.https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC12.014 pp.228-236. (5), 32 3,p.9-0.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00173778 pp.199-209. (3), est n E ru size Group SE) and density (Individual NNTR ± ± ± ± ± ± . 0.96 1 0.2 .159 2.03 5.42 1.09 4.68 5.10 5.98 6.32 1.81 1.88 5.02 1.41 1.11 0.35 0.32 1.2 C, oals18rl o tegho vdne n 95% and evidence, of strength for rule 1/8 Royall’s 14 ora fApidEcology Applied of Journal nentoa ora fBoiest n Con- and Biodiversity of Journal International est n E ru size Group SE) and density (Individual TATR ± ± ± ± ± ± .31.37 2.35 7.22 2.50 2.25 0.23 5.13 1.15 2.08 0.36 0.76 1.22 , eairleooyand ecology Behavioral 48 3,pp.806-814. (3), 2 Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. o2Tiger mod2 Tiger mod3 evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model Tiger mod2 Tiger mod3 ID Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model density Prey * sity den- density Prey + sity den- evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model density Prey * sity den- density Prey + sity den- Prey.densityReserve.sizeTerrain. Intercept Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model .5 .6 AN - NA NA - 0.066 NA 9.450 NA 0.106 8.385 Prey.densityReserve.sizeTerrain.rugTiger.densityPrey.density:Tiger.densityKIntercept weight evidence of delta strength for AICc rule LogLik 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion - lec- Se- NA Model NA - 0.066 NA 9.450 NA 0.106 8.385 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model rug evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model 15 ie.estP e.est:ie.estK Lgi Icdlaweight Tiger.densityPrey.density:Tiger.densityK delta AICc LogLik 1.162 0.721 evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model 1.162 0.721 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model .1 - 5 0.011 - 4 NA - 5 0.011 - 4 NA evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model 70.611 71.678 70.611 71.678

evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model 5.3 .0 0.400 0.808 153.830 0.600 0.000 153.022 0.400 0.808 153.830 0.600 0.000 153.022

evidence of strength for rule 1/8 all’s Roy- using tion lec- Se- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model Model Model Se- Se- lec- lec- tion tion using with Roy- delta all’s AICc 1/8 less rule than for 2 strength of evidence Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. rydniy000000002214000*008t 0.171 to 0.008 -0.210 to -1.583 0.028 to -0.005 * 0.030 0.010* 0.188 2.164 6.783 2.562 1.315 0.042 1.299 0.350 0.009 0.040 1 1.248 ’ ‘ 0.1 0.340 ‘.’ 0.05 ‘*’ 0.01 ‘**’ 0.001 ‘***’ 0 0.008 codes: Signif. 1 ’ ‘ 0.1 ‘.’ 0.05 ‘*’ 0.01 ‘**’ 0.001 ‘***’ 0 codes: Signif. 1 ’ ‘ 0.1 ‘.’ 0.05 ‘*’ 0.01 ‘**’ 0.001 ‘***’ 0 codes: Signif. 1 ’ ‘ 0.1 ‘.’ 0.05 ‘*’ 0.01 ‘**’ 0.001 ‘***’ 0 codes: Signif. 0.090 8.811 1 ’ -0.897 ‘ 0.1 ‘.’ 0.05 ‘*’ 0.01 ‘**’ 0.001 ‘***’ 0.011 0 codes: Signif. Eastern in Reserve 1 ’ NagziraTiger ‘ Navegaon 0.1 and ‘.’ Reserve 0.05 ‘*’ Tiger 0.01 Andhari ‘**’ Tadoba 0.001 showing ‘***’ 0 Map codes: Signif. 1. Figure 1 ’ ‘ legend: 0.1 Figure ‘.’ 0.05 ‘*’ 0.01 ‘**’ 0.001 ‘***’ 0 codes: Signif. density Prey.density*Tiger Prey.density Tiger.denisty Intercept selection model top the in present variables all for output averaging Model 4. Table Tiger mod2 Tiger mod3 criteria weight tive la- - cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model density Prey * sity den- density Prey + sity den- criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model .5 .6 AN - NA NA - 0.066 NA 9.450 NA 0.106 8.385 Prey.densityReserve.sizeTerrain.rugTiger.densityPrey.density:Tiger.densityKIntercept weight criteria weight delta tive la- AICc mu- LogLik cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model 16 siaeSd ro dutdS au Pr( value z SE Adjusted Error Std. Estimate 1.162 0.721 criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model .1 - 5 0.011 - 4 NA criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model 70.611 71.68

criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model 5.308 0.40 0.81 153.83 0.60 0.00 153.02

criteria weight tive la- mu- cu- 95% on based tion selec- Model 2 than less AICc delta with tion lec- Se- Model Model Model selec- Se- tion lec- based tion on with 95% delta cu- AICc mu- less la- than tive 2 weight criteria < e1 * .6 11.357 - 6.265 *** 2e-16 > | z | I(. 97.5%) - % (2.5 CI ) Posted on Authorea 21 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159534682.28220257 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. iajnCatre n au akne o hi epwt I ok etakNmnGyl Kumar Goyal, manuscript. Naman the thank thank improve We We to inputs. work. inputs Forest data GIS valuable of her giving with Conservator Maharashtra for for help Chief Songsassen Saxena their and Akanksha Nucharin and for and thank grant- Markandey Warden fund We Ankit for Nakul wildlife study. State, and program the Chief Maharashtra Chatterjee Reserve, of the Nilanjan Tiger facilitation thank Nagzira and Nawegaon We M.Sc. permission and ing Reserve support. India, Tiger institutional Andhari In- Institute Tadoba for Forest, Wildlife India Wildlife Director, of and by Dean stitute thank funded We was Department,D-22(8)/WL/Reseach/CT-722/(12-13)/2934/2013. study B.H., manuscript. This the of writing P.G. the and led A.B. draft. B.H. study; Acknowledgements final and the the A.B. designed approved data; and P.G. the P.G. and analyzed and P.G. A.B., A.B., and P.N., B.H., A.B. ideas; data; the the conceived collected P.G. and A.B., P.N., B.H., section Contributions Author interests. competing no have material. We supplementary of form Statement the Interests in Competing manuscript alongwith submitted is data All Statement response Accessibilty in Data with size parameters pack model Dhole Average and 5. assessment significant 6. Figure wide the assessment Figure distribution wide all on distribution Showing based on density 3. based density prey Figure tiger to NNTR to and response TATR in from size with size India. variables pack of dhole predictor map of non-significant the Comparison in 2. location Figure area study showing Inset Landscape. Vidarbha β offiin ausa 5 ofiec au iue4 hl pack Dhole 4. Figure value confidence 95% at values coefficient β offiin ausa 5 confidenc 95% at values coefficient 17