Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2026 | 18(2): 28399–28405

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10059.18.2.28399-28405

#10059 | Received 24 July 2025 | Final received 14 January 2026 | Finally accepted 28 January 2026

 

 

Population status and habitat use of Indian Grey Wolf Canis lupus pallipes in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India

 

Iqra Rabbani 1   & Sharad Kumar 2       

 

1,2 Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India.

1 rajputiqrarabbani@gmail.com, 2 sharadamu@gmail.com (corresponding author)

 

 

Editor: Murali Krishna Chatakonda, Amity University, Noida, India.          Date of publication: 26 February 2026 (online & print)

 

Citation: Rabbani, I. & S. Kumar (2026). Population status and habitat use of Indian Grey Wolf Canis lupus pallipes in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 18(2): 28399–28405. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10059.18.2.28399-28405

  

Copyright: © Rabbani & Kumar 2026. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: None.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: Iqra Rabbani is a PhD research scholar in the Department of Wildlife Sciences at Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India. Her research focuses on wolf ecology and habitat studies, species distribution, and conservation. Dr. Sharad Kumar is working as assistant professor in Department of Wildlife Sciences at Aligarh Muslim University. He has conducted long-term research on tiger ecology in Corbett Tiger Reserve. He has also been actively involved in various wildlife research and conservation programs across Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Assam, contributing significantly to large carnivore conservation efforts in India.

 

Author contributions: Concept and design of study IR and SK. Supervision: SK. Data collection: IR. Analysis: IR and SK. Manuscript writing IR, Manuscript review and comments: IR and SK.

 

Acknowledgements: We sincerely express our gratitude to the Forest Department of Pench Tiger Reserve for their continuous support and cooperation during my study. We are especially grateful to Shri Rajnish Singh, IFS, Deputy Director granting permission to conduct research and for his constant guidance and logistical support throughout fieldwork. We also extend our sincere thanks to Shri Sumit Rega, Shri Rahul Upadhyaya, and S.K. Ukiye from Forest Department. I (Iqra Rabbani) also thankful to all the faculty members of Department of Wildlife Sciences at Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for their guidance, encouragement, and valuable teachings throughout my academic journey. Finally, I wholeheartedly thankful to Vikrant Sharma, Ananya Prasad, Nishat Fatima for their endless support and encouraging me at every step.

 

 

Abstract: Wolves, once one of the most widely distributed carnivores on Earth, have experienced drastic population declines and range contractions due to anthropogenic pressures. We studied the population status and habitat utilization of the Indian Grey Wolf in Pench Tiger Reserve (PTR). Both direct and indirect evidence were used to assess wolf presence, and Bonferroni confidence intervals were calculated to analyze habitat utilization. Wolf distribution was found to be restricted to the Khawasa Range of PTR, with the Khawasa Beat showing the highest encounter rate (0.154/km). Most wolf signs were recorded in mixed habitats (miscellaneous), underscoring the importance of these areas for the species’ long-term conservation. A significant positive correlation was observed between tree-cutting and wolf encounter rate (r = 0.976, p = 0.024, df = 3), suggesting that habitat changes associated with tree removal may influence wolf activity.

 

Keywords: Anthropogenic pressures, Bonferroni confidence intervals, buffer zone, camera trap, carnivores, correlation, direct and indirect evidence, encounter rate, grazing, tree-cutting.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The Grey Wolf Canis lupus, the largest member of the canid family, inhabits a wide range of terrestrial ecosystems (Mech 1974; Jhala & Giles 1991). Its global distribution spans across 68 countries, making it one of the most widely distributed terrestrial mammals (Boitani et al. 2020). Among the 10 subspecies of Grey Wolf recognized worldwide (Boitani et al. 2020; Werhahn 2020), India harbors two distinct subspecies: the Himalayan or Tibetan Wolf Canis lupus chanco and the Indian Grey Wolf or Indian Peninsular Wolf Canis lupus pallipes (Aggarwal et al. 2003; Sharma et al. 2004). The Indian Grey Wolf is a keystone carnivore of India’s semi-arid and grassland ecosystems. Despite its ecological significance, the taxon remains one of the least studied large carnivores in the country, often overshadowed by charismatic megafauna such as the elephant, tiger, and leopard. In India, the Indian Grey Wolf is protected under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ by the IUCN as its populations are considered fragmented and declining due to increasing anthropogenic pressures (IUCN 2025).

Over the past few decades, the global decline of large carnivores has emerged as a critical conservation issue, with many species experiencing significant range contractions and population losses (Weber & Rabinowitz 1996; Ripple et al. 2014; Fernández-Sepúlveda & Martín 2022). The Indian Grey Wolf is no exception, having suffered a substantial decline across much of its historical distribution (Mech 1970). This decline has been largely attributed to habitat degradation, increasing human-wolf negative interactions, low public awareness, and in some areas, targeted persecution and extermination campaigns (Habib 2007). The estimated population of the Indian Grey Wolf in India is around 3,170 individuals (Jhala et al. 2022),  distributed across fragmented habitats with little to no connectivity between metapopulations. This highlights the urgent need for region-specific conservation strategies tailored to local ecological and sociopolitical contexts.  It is estimated that India has a total of 89,138 km2 suitable habitats for breeding packs; the largest continuous breeding habitat is located in the Central Indian landscape (Jhala et al. 2022).  The remaining populations of the Indian Grey Wolf are small, fragmented, and increasingly isolated, making them highly vulnerable to local extinction. Without targeted management interventions and scientific understanding of their population status and habitat needs, the long-term viability of these populations remains at risk (Singh & Kumara 2006; Becker et al. 2008).

Reliable information on population size and habitat use is essential for the effective conservation of any threatened species (Sousa-Silva et al. 2014). Acquiring such data is particularly challenging for species like the Indian Grey Wolf, which occur at low densities and inhabit vast, human-dominated landscapes (Mahajan et al. 2022a). Although several studies have assessed the species’ status at local and regional scales (Jhala & Giles 1991; Kumar & Rahmani 1997; Kumar 1998; Singh & Kumara 2006), and a few at the national level (Shahi 1982; Jhala 1993, 2003; Karanth et al. 2009; Srivathsa et al. 2020; Jhala 2022), knowledge gaps still persist regarding their ecological preferences across different landscapes.

Pench Tiger Reserve (PTR), located in the Satpura-Maikal landscape of central India, is a known stronghold for apex predators like the Bengal Tiger Panthera tigris and Leopard Panthera pardus. However, its role as a habitat for lesser-known carnivores such as the Indian Grey Wolf is poorly understood. Understanding the population status and habitat utilization patterns of the Indian Grey Wolf in a multi-use landscape of PTR is crucial for informed conservation and management efforts. This study aims to assess the current distribution and habitat preferences of the Indian Grey Wolf within Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. By identifying key habitats and anthropogenic influences, the findings will contribute to evidence-based strategies for the conservation of this ecologically important yet vulnerable carnivore.

 

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 

Study Area

The study was conducted in PTR, located in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh (Figure 1). The Reserve spans an area of 1,179.63 km² and falls within the Seoni and Chhindwara districts. Geographically, PTR lies between 78.916–79.583 0E and 21.583–22.000 0N. The elevation ranges 425–600 m. Although some areas like the Karmajhiri Range are plains, the majority of PTR’s terrain is characterized by gently undulating landscapes interspersed with seasonal streams and ‘nallahs’. The region experiences a wide temperature range, from 0°C in winter to 45°C in summer (Sankar et al. 2000), with an average annual rainfall of approximately 1,300 mm. The climate is marked by four distinct seasons: summer (March–June), monsoon (July–August), post-monsoon (September–November), and winter (December–February).

The vegetation in Pench Tiger Reserve is predominantly composed of dry deciduous forests, comprising pure Teak Tectona grandis forest, Teak-mixed forest, mixed forests, bamboo forest, and open grasslands. The reserve supports a diverse assemblage of carnivores, including the Tiger, Leopard, Dhole Cuon alpinus, Jungle Cat Felis chaus, Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica, Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus, Golden Jackal Canis aureus, Indian Grey Wolf, and Common Palm Civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus. The herbivore community includes species such as the Sambar Rusa unicolor, Chital or Spotted Deer Axis axis, Gaur Bos gaurus, Nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus, and Chousingha or Four-horned Antelope Tetracerus quadricornis. In addition to mammals, the reserve hosts a rich diversity of birdlife, with over 250 recorded species.

 

Methods

Camera-trapping data in 2019–2023 were collected from the forest department of Pench Tiger Reserve. Data analysis revealed the presence of the Indian Grey Wolf exclusively in the Khawasa Range of the Reserve. Accordingly, the Khawasa Range was selected for further data collection (January–March 2023) on population status and habitat use of wolves. The range is a multi-use area of the Reserve and predominantly characterized by tropical dry deciduous forest. The vegetation is dominated by Teak along with associated species such as Mahua Madhuca indica, Saja Terminalia tomentosa, and Tendu Diospyros melanoxylon. The range experiences moderate level of human disturbance like livestock grazing, tree-lopping, and the seasonal collection of forest products like Mahua flowers and Tendu leaves. The range comprises nine forest beats, each of which was chosen as a sampling unit to assess the population status and habitat utilization patterns of the species.

Wolf status and habitat use across forest beats were assessed by systematically searching for and recording both direct and indirect evidences of wolves. Surveys were conducted along all trails, roads, and nallahs within the different beats, as these features are commonly used by wolves for movement within their home ranges. Survey efforts involved walking 171 km² across these features. This approach increases the probability of detecting wolf evidence compared to random surveys (Mahajan et al. 2022b). To minimize bias arising from misidentification, only fresh signs were recorded during the survey.

Whenever direct or indirect evidence of wolves was encountered, data on evidence type, location, habitat, terrain and status of anthropogenic pressures were collected. To differentiate indirect evidence of the Indian Grey Wolf from those of related sympatric species such as the Domestic Dog Canis familiaris and Golden Jackal Canis aureus, we compared pugmarks, scats, and associated field signs during surveys. Wolf pugmarks are large (7–10 cm in length), oval and symmetrical shape with a straight posterior margin of the heel pad, whereas dog tracks are more variable in size, often rounder and asymmetrical with prominent claw impressions, and jackal tracks are smaller (4.5–6 cm), compact, and narrower (Talwar & Usmani 2005; Mahajan et al. 2022b). Scats were distinguished based on size, shape, and contents. The wolf scats are thick (2–3 cm diameter), rope-like, and generally contained hair, bones, and prey remains; dog scats are irregular, softer, and often contained anthropogenic matter; jackal scats are smaller (1.5–2 cm diameter), segmented, and frequently contained fruit seeds in addition to hair (Jhala 2003; Rather 2021; Mahajan et al. 2022b). Data from camera-trapping and evidence surveys were used for the analysis of habitat use.

To quantify habitat conditions and habitat use, random sampling plots were laid in each beat. For the tree-layer assessment, a circular plot with a 10-m radius was used. Within this, a nested 5-m radius circular plot was laid to assess the shrub layer following Haleem & Ilyas (2023). The data collected from these plots were used to quantify vegetation characteristics, including species density, diversity, richness, and evenness, which were then used to understand patterns of wolf habitat utilization. The area under different habitat types was determined using Remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS) analysis based on the land use and land cover (LULC) map of the study area.

 

Analysis

The trails were monitored once, covering a total distance of 171 km. Beat-wise encounter rates were calculated by dividing the total number of wolf evidence recorded in each beat by the total distance travelled within that beat (Table 1). To evaluate the relationship between anthropogenic pressures and wolf presence, non-parametric correlation analysis was conducted using SPSS version 22.0 (IBM Corp 2013). Vegetation attributes, including tree and shrub diversity, richness, and evenness, were computed using PAST software.

Data on direct and indirect wolf evidence were segregated by habitat type. A chi-square test was performed to examine whether the distribution of wolf evidence differed significantly among the various habitat types. To assess habitat use patterns by wolves, Bonferroni confidence intervals were calculated (Neu et al. 1974; Byres et al. 1994). Habitat preferences and avoidance were determined based on these intervals.        

 

 

RESULTS

 

Over the past five years, a total of 27 camera-trap captures of the Indian Grey Wolf were recorded in the Khawasa Range. The camera trap data revealed the presence of wolves in six out of nine beats of Khawasa range: Kothar, Amajihri, Amabari, Teliya, Vijaypani, and Khawasa. No wolf detections were recorded in East Kohka, Mohgaon, and Pipariya beats. Among the beats where wolves were captured, Kothar Beat recorded the highest number of captures, while Amajihri and Teliya had the lowest (Figure 2).

A total of 13 direct and indirect signs of Indian Grey Wolf presence were recorded during the sign survey, confirming their occurrence in only four out of the nine beats of the Khawasa Range. The highest encounter rate was recorded in the Khawasa Beat (0.15 evidences/km), while the lowest was in Pipariya Beat (0.12 evidences/km) (Table 1). The analysis of anthropogenic pressures in beats with wolf presence revealed varying intensities of human activities. The highest tree-lopping was recorded in Pipariya Beat (95 trees/ha) while the lowest was in Khawasa Beat. The highest tree-cutting was recorded in Khawasa (81.9 trees/ha), whereas Pipariya Beat had the lowest tree-cutting. The highest intensity of grazing was recorded in Vijaypani while there was no grazing in Aamajhiri (Table 1).  No significant correlation was observed between the wolf encounter rate and most anthropogenic pressures, except for tree-cutting, which showed a strong positive correlation with encounter rate (r = 0.976, p = 0.024, df = 3).

In terms of shrub composition, Ambari had the highest shrub diversity (1.673), while East Kohka showed the highest shrub richness (1.593), and Ambari again had the highest shrub evenness (0.7608). Conversely, the lowest shrub diversity was observed in Kothar (1.022), lowest richness in Mohgaon (1.027), and lowest evenness in Kothar (0.3968) (Table 2).

Habitat-wise comparison of vegetation parameters revealed that the mixed habitat (Miscellaneous Forest) had the highest tree diversity (2.84), richness (4.345) and evenness (0.5351), which indicates species in mixed habitats are more evenly distributed than in Teak and Teak-mixed habitat (Table 3). Analysis of 40 wolf evidences (including camera-trap captures) across three habitat types – mixed, teak mixed, and teak – revealed that the majority of evidence (32) was recorded from mixed habitat, while Teak and Teak-mixed habitats each had four evidences. A chi-square test indicated no statistically significant difference in habitat utilization by the Indian Grey Wolf (χ² = 4.9, df = 2, p = 0.05), although the test statistic was close to the critical value. To further assess habitat preference, Bonferroni confidence intervals were calculated (Table 3). The results suggested that Teak habitat was utilized less than its availability, whereas mixed and Teak-mixed habitats were used in proportion to their availability.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

This study revealed that the distribution of the Indian Grey Wolf in PTR is restricted to the Khawasa Range, which lies in the buffer zone, with most sightings occurring near human settlements. Their absence from the core area and exclusive presence in the buffer zone aligns with findings by Jhala et al. (2022), who suggest that wolves prefer habitats with low to moderate densities of dominant predators such as tigers and leopards. This avoidance may be attributed to the high density of tigers and leopards in the core zone of the study area, indicating that wolves actively avoid areas dominated by larger carnivores. The proximity of wolf sightings to human settlements suggests opportunistic behaviour, likely driven by availability of livestock carcasses and anthropogenic waste near human settlements, an adaptive trait also documented in other studies (Jethva & Jhala 2004; Becker et al. 2008; Sharma et al. 2019). By utilizing consistent and energy-efficient food sources such as livestock carcasses and human waste, wolves may compensate for limited access to wild prey resulting from interference or competition with dominant carnivores (Becker et al. 2008).

Habitat composition also plays a significant role in influencing wolf distribution in the study area. Results of the study indicate a preference for mixed and Teak-mixed forest types, which provide both concealment and prey opportunities. These habitats tend to support higher densities of herbivores due to their diverse ground vegetation and structural complexity (Karanth & Sunquist 1995), thereby indirectly benefiting wolves.

The significant positive correlation between tree-cutting and wolf encounter rate indicates that higher tree felling is associated with increased wolf activity. Tree-cutting creates open spaces and such areas also have more dirt roads and trails, which may facilitate wolf movement and improve hunting efficiency by increasing prey visibility and accessibility. Additionally, tree-cutting can enhance the growth of ground vegetation (shrub and herb layers). This improved ground cover may further contribute to habitat suitability by supporting higher prey abundance and enhancing foraging opportunities for wolves. This pattern highlights the species’ ability to exploit human-modified habitats. Similar findings have been reported in other studies, where wolves were observed to use logging roads, clear-cuts, and other disturbed habitats to optimize travel and foraging efficiency (Whittington et al. 2005; Houle et al. 2010). Therefore, the observed relationship may reflect a functional response of wolves to human-mediated habitat changes, demonstrating their adaptability in human-dominated landscapes.

Study findings highlight that buffer zones are not merely peripheral spaces but serve as critical habitats for many wildlife species, including wolves. These areas must be recognized for their ecological value and managed accordingly. An effective conservation strategy should integrate habitat management, scientific research, and active community participation to ensure the protection of wildlife across the landscape. To ensure the long-term conservation of wolves in the region, it is essential to adopt a landscape-level conservation approach. Given that wolf packs require large home ranges, ranging 150–300 km2 (Jhala 2003; Habib 2007), focusing solely on small habitat patches is insufficient. Conservation efforts should prioritize the protection of natural habitat features and the maintenance of wildlife corridors, enabling free movement between areas and promoting population connectivity (Sharma et al. 2019; Gubbi et al. 2020).

 

Table 1. Status of the anthropogenic pressures in beats with wolf presence in Pench Tiger Reserve.

Beats

Wolf encounter rate (evidence/km)

Tree-lopping density (ha)

Tree-cutting density (ha)

Cattle dung piles density (ha)

Khawasa

0.154

40.9

81.9

22.7

Aamajhiri

0.137

47.8

15.9

0.0

Pipariya

0.121

95.5

15.9

79.6

Vijaypani

0.141

63.7

31.8

111.5

 

 

Table 2. Habitat-wise tree and shrub indices and counts of wolf evidence in Pench Tiger Reserve.

Habitat

Tree diversity

Tree richness

Tree evenness

Shrub diversity

Shrub richness

Shrub evenness

Wolf evidence

Mixed

2.84

4.345

0.5351

0.811

1.957

0.5144

32

Teak

1.687

3.049

0.2843

0.8107

2.213

0.654

4

Teak Mixed

2.02

3.717

0.3428

0.5522

0.9128

0.5508

4

 

 

Table 3. Availability and expected proportional usage with 95% Bonferroni confidence intervals.

Habitat

Observed usage

Expected usage

Actual proportional use (Pi)

Expected proportional use (Pio)

Bonferroni confidence interval 

Remark

Mixed

32

26.96

0.8

0.67

0.654 ≤ Pi ≤ 0.945

0

Teak

4

10.02

0.1

0.25

-0.009 ≤ Pi ≤ 0.209

-

Teak mixed

4

3.005

0.1

0.07

-0.009 ≤ Pi ≤ 0.209

0

-—Avoided | +—Preferred | 0—used in accordance to availability.

For figures - - click here for full PDF

 

REFERENCES

 

Aggarwal, R.K., J. Ramadevi & L. Singh (2003). Ancient origin and evolution of the Indian wolf: Evidence from mitochondrial DNA typing of wolves from Trans-Himalayan region and Peninsular India. Genome Biology 4: 1–30.

Becker, M.S., R.A. Garrott, P.J. White, C.N. Gower, E.J. Bergman & R. Jaffe (2008). Wolf prey selection in an elk–bison system: Choice or circumstance? Terrestrial Ecology 3: 305–337.

Boitani, L., M. Phillips & Y.V. Jhala (2020). Canis lupus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T3746A163508960.en

Fernández-Sepúlveda, J. & C.A. Martín (2022). Conservation status of the world’s carnivorous mammals (order Carnivora). Mammalian Biology 102(5–6): 1911–1925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-022-00305-8

Government of India. (1972). The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Act No. 53 of 1972). Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi, India.

Gubbi, S., S. Ramesh, A.M. Menon, M.N. Girish & H.C. Poornesha (2020). The lone wolf: new distribution update of the Indian Grey Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) in southern India. Canid Biology & Conservation 22(6): 21–24.

Habib, B. (2007). Ecology of Indian wolf (Canis lupus pallipes Sykes, 1831) in the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, Maharashtra, India. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India, xi+264 pp.

Habib, B. & S. Kumar (2007). Den shifting by wolves in semi-wild landscapes in the Deccan Plateau, Maharashtra. Journal of Zoology 272: 259–265 .

Haleem, A. & O. Ilyas (2023). Status distribution and factors affecting the habitat selection by Sambar Deer (Rusa unicolor) in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(1): 22371–22380. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7597.15.1.22371-22380

Houle, M., D. Fortin, C. Dussault, R. Courtois & J.-P. Ouellet. (2010). Cumulative effects of forestry on habitat use by Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the boreal forest.  Landscape Ecology 25(3): 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9420-2

IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. IBM Corp., Armonk, NY.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2025). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Version 2025-2). https://www.iucnredlist.org

Jethva, B.D. & Y.V. Jhala (2004). Foraging ecology, economics and conservation of Indian wolves in the Bhal region of Gujarat, Western India. Biological Conservation 116: 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00218-0

Jhala, Y.V. (1991). The habitat and population dynamics of wolves and blackbuck in Velavadar National Park, Gujarat, India. Ph.D. Thesis.  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 199 pp.

Jhala, Y.V. (1993). Predation on blackbuck by wolves in Velavadar National Park. Conservation Biology 7(4): 874–881.

Jhala, Y.V. (2003). Status, ecology and conservation of the Indian wolf (Canis lupus pallipes). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 100: 293–307.

Jhala, Y.V. & R.H. Giles Jr. (1991). The status and conservation of the wolf in Gujarat and Rajasthan, India. Conservation Biology 5(4): 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00354.x

Jhala, Y.V., S. Saini, S. Kumar & Q. Qureshi (2022). Distribution, status, and conservation of the Indian peninsular wolf. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10: Article 814966. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.814966

Karanth, K.U. & M.E. Sunquist (1995). Prey selection by tiger, leopard, and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64(4): 439–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/5647

Karanth, K.K., J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, K.U. Karanth & N.L. Christensen (2009). Patterns and determinants of mammal species occurrence in India. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(6): 1189–1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01710.x

Kumar, S. (1998). Ecology and behaviour of Indian Grey Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) in the Deccan Grasslands of Solapur, Maharashtra. P.Hd. Thesis.. Centre of Wildlife and Ornithology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India, 261 pp.

Kumar, S. & A.R. Rahmani (1995). Conservation of the Grey Wolf in Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary at Nannaj, Maharashtra, India, pp. 364–367. In: Bissonette, J.A. & P. R. Krausman (eds.). Proceedings of the international symposium on ecology and management of ungulates in India.

Mahajan, P., R. Chaudhary, A. Kazi & D. Khandal (2022a). Spatial determinants of livestock depredation and human attitude toward wolves in Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10: 855084. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.855084

Mahajan, P., D. Khandal & K. Chandrawal (2022b). Factors influencing habitat-use of Indian Grey Wolf in the semiarid landscape of western India. Mammal Study 47(1): 23–37. https://doi.org/10.3106/ms2021-0029

Mech, L.D. (1974). Canis lupus. Mammalian Species 37: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.2307/3503924

Morrison, M.L., B.G. Marcot & R.W. Mannan (1992). Wildlife–Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications. University of Wisconsin Press, 520 pp.

Neu, C.W., C.R. Byers & J.M. Peek (1974). A technique for analysis of utilization–availability data. The Journal of Wildlife Management 38(3): 541–545. https://doi.org/10.2307/3800887

Rather, T.A. (2021). Ecology of carnivores in buffer zone of the Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India, xxiii+271 pp.

Ripple, W.J., J.A. Estes, R.L. Beschta, C.C. Wilmers, E.G. Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen, M. Letnic, M.P. Nelson, O.J. Schmitz, D.W. Smith, A.D. Wallach & A.J. Wirsing (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343(6167): 1241484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484

Shahi, S.P. (1982). Report of Grey Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) in India: A preliminary survey. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 79: 493–502.

Sharma, D.K., J.E. Maldonado, Y.V. Jhala & R.C. Fleischer (2004). Ancient wolf lineages in India. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271(Suppl. 3): S1–S4. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0071

Sharma, L.K., T. Mukherjee, P.C. Saren & K. Chandra (2019). Identifying suitable habitat and corridors for Indian Grey Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) in Chotta Nagpur Plateau and Lower Gangetic Plains: A species with differential management needs. PLoS ONE 14(4): e0215019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215019

Singh, M. & H.N. Kumara (2006). Distribution, status and conservation of Indian Gray Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) in Karnataka, India. Journal of Zoology 270(1): 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00103

Sousa-Silva, R., P. Alves, J. Honrado & A. Lomba (2014). Improving the assessment and reporting on rare and endangered species through species distribution models. Global Ecology and Conservation 2: 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.09.01

Talwar, R. & A. Usmani (2005). Reading pugmarks: A pocket guide for forest guards (Revised ed.). Tiger & Wildlife Programme, WWF-India

Weber, W. & A. Rabinowitz (1996). A global perspective on large carnivore conservation. Conservation Biology 10: 1045–1054.

Werhahn, G. (2020). Phylogeny and ecology of the Himalayan wolf. Ph.D. Thesis. Wildlife Conservation Research, Unit Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 437 pp.

White, G.C. & R.A. Garrott (1990). Habitat analysis, pp. 183–205. In: Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press.

Whittington, J., C.C.S. Clair & G. Mercer (2005). Spatial responses of wolves to and   road trails in mountain valleys. Ecological Applications 15(2): 543– 553. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5317