Journal of
Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 July 2018 | 10(8): 11999–12007
Habitat suitability and threat analysis of Greater One-horned Rhinoceros
Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus, 1758
(Mammalia: Perissodactyla: Rhinocerotidae)
in Rautahat District, Nepal
Saru Rimal 1, Hari Adhikari
2 & Shankar Tripathi
3
1,3 Faculty of Forestry, Agriculture and
Forestry University, Hetauda-10, 44100, Hetauda,
Nepal
2 Earth Change Observation Laboratory, Department of Geosciences and Geography,
University of Helsinki, Finland
2 Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Finland
1 rimalsaru7@gmail.com (corresponding
author), 2 hari.adhikari@helsinki.fi, 3 stripathi@afu.edu.np
Abstract: The Greater One-horned Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis
has been listed as a Vulnerable species on IUCN Red List, Appendix I of CITES,
and a protected animal under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
2029 B.S., 1973. In Nepal, it was found
only in Chitwan, Bardia, Shuklaphanta and Parsa national
parks, but it has recently been also reported from the forests of Rautahat. The main
objectives of the study were to assess habitat suitability and threats for
rhinoceros in Rautahat at an elevation range of
approximately 300–1,000 m. Remote
sensing data and geospatial modeling techniques were
used to assess habitat suitability of rhinoceros. Vegetation assessment was carried out for
tree, shrubs, and herbs of plot size 10m × 10m, 5m × 5m, 1m × 1m respectively
for habitat suitability. Threat analysis
was carried out using purposive sampling among local people and their
perceptions were collected on the movement of rhinoceros and threats. The integration of nine explanatory variables
showed that about 0.06%, 29.18%, 20.45%, and 50.31% of the study area was found
to be most suitable, suitable, moderately suitable and unsuitable habitat
respectively for rhinoceros. Out of 30
respondents, 37%, 23%, 20%, and 20% identified the main threat to rhinoceros to
be unmanaged habitat, poaching, human-wildlife conflict and environmental
factors, respectively. This study
recommends parts of the Rautahat District to be
extended as the habitat of rhinoceros and starting of immediate conservation
initiatives in the area.
Keywords: Habitat suitability, Rhinoceros, threat
analysis, vegetation analysis.
doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3948.10.8.11999-12007
Editor: Hem Sagar Baral, School of Environmental Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury-Wodonga,
Australia. Date
of publication: 26 July 2018 (online & print)
Manuscript
details: Ms # 3948 | Received 07 December 2017 | Final received 21 May 2018 |
Finally accepted 01 July 2018
Citation: Rimal, S., H. Adhikari
& S. Tripathi (2018).
Habitat suitability and threat analysis of Greater
One-horned Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia: Perissodactyla:
Rhinocerotidae) in Rautahat
District, Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(8): 11999-12007; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3948.10.8.11999–12007
Copyright: © Rimal et al.
2018. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this
article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate
credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: None.
Competing interests: The authors declare
no competing interests.
Author Details: Saru Rimal has
completed her Bachelor of Science degree in Forestry from Agriculture and
Forestry University. She is interested in wildlife, conservation biology, RS
and GIS. Hari Adhikari is
working as researcher and PhD candidate in University of Helsinki, Finland. He
has international working experience on wildlife and forestry in Nepal, India,
Philippines, Kenya, Germany and Finland. Shankar
Tripathi is a young forestry professional with
the interest in forest measurement and application of RS and GIS in the field
of nature conservation. He has completed BSc and MSc degree in Forestry from Tribhuvan University and has been serving as a faculty on
the Faculty of Forestry at Agriculture and Forestry University since 2016.
Author Contribution: SR planned and conducted this research, HA and ST supervised this
research. Hari, Saru and
Shankar together worked on manuscript. HA and SR collected RS and GIS data. SR
and ST collected field data.
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Hari Bhadra Acharya and Ashok Kumar Ram
from Parsa National Park, and Maheshwor
Dhakal from Ministry of Forest and Environment. In addition, we would like to thank Ashok
Kumar Ram for small financial support to carry out field work.
This article is based on the bachelor thesis submitted to Agriculture and
Forestry University, Faculty of Forestry, Hetauda,
Nepal in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Bachelor of Forestry Science.
We would also like to thank Bijay Neupane, Assistant Professor of Institute of Forestry for his
encouraging comments. Anonymous
reviewers and the journal editor are thanked for useful insights and comments
that helped improve this work.
Introduction
Of the
five remaining extant species of rhinoceros, three live in Asia: the Greater
One-horned Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis, Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus
sumatrensis and Javan
Rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus,
and two are found in Africa: the White Rhinoceros Ceratotherium
simum and Black Rhinoceros Diceros
bicornis (Thapa
2016). In Nepal, the Greater One-horned
Rhinoceros is found in Chitwan National Park (CNP), Bardia National Park (BNP), Shuklaphanta
National Park (ShNP) and Parsa
National Park (PNP), and it has recently been reported in the forests of Rautahat District.
The Greater One-horned Rhinoceros (Indian Rhino), hereafter
“rhinoceros”, has been listed as a Vulnerable species
on IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Talukdar et
al. 2008) and is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Rhinoceros is listed as the protected animal
under National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2029 B.S., 1973 by the
Government of Nepal.
Rhinoceroses
are mostly solitary with the exception of mothers and calves and breeding
pairs, although they sometimes gather at bathing areas. They are active mostly at night, early in the
morning and in the late afternoon (Laurie 1978). In the middle of hot days they are commonly
seen resting in the shade, or mud, wallowing and bathing in lakes, rivers, and
pools. A recently published report by
WWF Nepal showed that habitat loss and poaching are emerging as major threats
to rhino conservation (Rookmaaker et al. 2016). Poachers kill rhinoceros for their horns, which
are highly valued and used in Chinese traditional medicine to reduce fever and
fear, and as an aphrodisiac (Crawford 1994).
Rautahat District is connected on the west to Bara District, which includes
PNP. In the past few years Rhinoceros
have frequently visited the area from PNP searching for suitable habitats, and
the previous trends showed migration of rhinoceros from CNP towards the east
via PNP to Rautahat.
CNP is contiguous to PNP in the east and PNP, in turn, has some forest
connectivity to Rautahat forests on the eastern
side. Rautahat
District is unique being outside the protected area and highly populated with
diverse ethnic communities. Of the three rhinoceroses found in Rautahat,
one was killed recently by poachers (Acharya
& Ram 2017). Thus, it became
necessary to find out the habitat suitability and threats to the rhinoceros in
the study area for proper management.
Habitat
suitability modeling for wildlife is currently
gaining interest in wildlife conservation and management. To define habitat suitability, multivariate
models are applied in combination with remote sensing (RS) and geographic
information system (GIS). Remote sensing
is an invaluable source of information and GIS is an excellent tool for
creating land cover and habitat factor maps required for habitat modeling. Remote
sensing has been used to produce land cover maps since the 1970s (Bradley &
Fleishman 2008; Adhikari & Schneider 2012; Tripathi et al. 2012).
This
study used remote sensing data and GIS technology with field study for analysis
of habitat condition to predict suitable habitat for rhinoceros in Rautahat. Habitat
suitability models have become well-accepted tools to understand the habitat
attributes of different organisms, evaluating habitat qualities and developing
wildlife management and conservation strategies (Verner
et al. 1986; Kafley 2008). Habitat models are based on the relationship
between animal and environment (Kushwaha et al.
2005). The habitat suitability index
(HSI) modeling assumes that the amount of habitat is
related to the potential of the land to support individuals or populations of
wildlife and that habitat designated as high quality are more suitable than
those assigned lower quality ranking.
HSI models are analytical tools for determining relative potential of an
area to provide habitat for wildlife (Clevenger et al. 2002).
The
main objectives of this study were (1) to assess habitat suitability, and (2)
to do a threat analysis for rhinoceros in the study area using geospatial
datasets on topography, climate, land use and statistical modeling
at the landscape scale in Rautahat District.
Material and
Methods
Study area
The
study area is situated in Chandrapur Municipality, Gujara Rural Municipality and Phatuwa
Bijayapur Rural Municipality of Rautahat
District in the central part of Nepal (Fig. 1).
It is located between85.23–85.50 0E and 26.73–27.23 0N. Lower tropical zone lies below
300m and covers 64.4% of the total area of Rautahat
and upper tropical zone covers 5.6% of area and elevation ranges from 300–1,000
m (District Report 2011). It covers an
area of 112,600ha. Forest covered by Rautahat District is 29,400ha or 26.11% of the forest area
including the central ‘Charkoshe Jhadi’
of Nepal. Charkoshe
Jhadi is the broad strip of forests south of the Siwaliks from east to west along almost the entire length
of Nepal. Much of this wildlife-rich
habitat has now been lost except those areas that lie in a protected area
network. Sal forest Shorea
robusta is the primary forest type along with
mixed hardwood and riverine forests. The
climate of Rautahat is tropical to sub-tropical,
temperature ranging from 19.6–40 0C and average rainfall is 2,968mm
per year (Annual Report, District Forest Office, DFO 2016, Rautahat). Rautahat District
is the easternmost district identified under Terai
Arc Landscape (TAL) programme (MoFSC 2015).
Bara
District includes a part of PNP and lies west of Rautahat
District. This district is dominated by
35% Shorea robusta
forest. The major tree species are Shorea robusta, Terminalia tomentosa,
Acacia catechu, Adina cordifolia,
Dalbergia sissoo, with other riverine tree
species. The major shrub and grass
species in the study area are Hemalthriya compresa, Imperata cylindrica, Saccharum
spontaneum, and invasive alien weeds Mikania micrantha, Chromolaena odorata. This district is an important habitat for a
large number of animals including Tiger Panthera
tigris, One-horned Rhinoceros, Elephant Elephus maximus,
Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus,
Nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus, Sambar Deer Rusa unicolor, Spotted Deer Axis axis, Wild Boar Sus scrofa,
and a number of birds, including White-rumped Vulture
Gyps bengalensis, Eurasian Black
Vulture Aegypius monachus,
Himalayan Griffon Vulture Gyps himalayensis,
Indian Pitta Pitta brachyura,
and Great Hornbill Buceros bicornis;
though it is outside the protected area (Annual Report 2016, District Forest
Office Rautahat).
Explanatory variables for modeling habitat suitability assessment
A range
of explanatory variables was derived from geospatial datasets. Table 1 presents the complete list of
variables. All topographic, climatic, and land use data available for the study
area were resampled to 30m resolution and UTM 45N, WGS 84 projection system
(Fig. 2). The habitat used by rhinoceros
and the variables related to this habitat were established based on the
existing information available for the species.
In total, nine explanatory variables (aspect, slope, forest cover,
precipitation, temperature, road, water, settlement, and land cover) related to
habitat requirements of rhinoceros were used (Table 1).
Remote
sensing satellite data were used as a source of information, and spatial
analysis of the data was performed in Arc GIS Desktop 10.2.2 to process the
data. Weightages that influence the
habitat of rhinoceros by these different variables were decided after expert
consultation from PNP (Table 1).
A four
level suitability was depicted on the map with reference to habitat used by
rhinoceros. Areas away from human
settlements and close to water bodies were categorized as highly suitable while
areas near roads and human settlements but away from water bodies were
considered as unsuitable for rhinoceros (Thapa & Lichtenenegger 2005).
Suitable
habitat categories included the areas currently being used by rhinoceros and
the areas that could be potentially used.
Overlay process was carried out to produce suitable area map (Fig. 4
(a)). Nine suitability maps were prepared
based on the explanatory variables (Fig. 4 (b–j)) used in this study.
Field measurement
The
field measurements from a total of 26 plots (10m × 10m) were conducted between May–June 2017 and used in this study for habitat assessment
(Fig. 3). According to key informant
survey, possibility of rhinoceros sightings can be high in this
time-period. Sample plot centers were taken in the morning and positioned using
Garmin Global Positioning System (GPS) with an accuracy of 2–5 m.
Various
quadrats of 10m × 10m were randomly assigned to tree species. Within a quadrat, 5m × 5m quadrats were
allocated randomly in the corner for shrub species. Likewise, herbs were recorded from nested
sampling of 1m × 1m quadrat within the 5m × 5m quadrat. The distribution of nested sampling within
main quadrat (Mandal & Joshi 2014) is shown in
Fig. 3.
All
plant species within each quadrat were identified and counted. For the entire tree stems, diameters at
breast height (DBH) at 1.3m were measured using diameter tape, and height of
each stem was measured by a clinometer. A local parataxonomist
and field guide identified the tree species.
Leaves of unidentified tree species were brought to the faculty of
forestry at the Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU) for identification.
Threat analysis
Field
visits were undertaken to major places where rhinoceros encounters had been
reported, and relevant staff of PNP and district forest office were
interviewed. A questionnaire survey was
conducted among 30 respondents in the study area, including protected area
managers, experts and community representatives; their knowledge about
rhinoceros and its habitat, threats to rhinoceros in the study area and
possible conservation measures were documented.
The vegetation data collected in the field were used to calculate the
importance value index (IVI), density, frequency, and relative frequency of the
tree species by using the following procedure (Smith 1980).
To
calculate the prominence value (PV), the percentage cover of each species is
assumed in each quadrat recorded in classes as follows: for high coverage =
>50%, medium = 26–50 %, low = 0–25 %.
These data were used to calculate prominence value for each species (Jnawali 1995) and it is used to calculate the availability
of plants in the study area.
Table 1. Habitat suitability variables
and analysis
Data Type |
Weighted Influence |
Format (Source) |
Suitability criteria |
Aspect (30m × 30m) |
5 |
Raster (Jaxa
DEM) 1* |
Most suitable: Flat and South Suitable: East Less Suitable: North Unsuitable: West |
Slope (30m × 30m) |
10 |
Raster (Jaxa
DEM) 1* |
Most suitable: 5 Suitable: 10 Less Suitable: 15 Unsuitable: >15 |
Forest Cover (30m × 30m) |
20 |
Raster (Globcover)
2* |
Most suitable: 0–20 Suitable: 40–70 Less Suitable: 20–40 Unsuitable: > 70–90 |
Precipitation (1km × 1km) |
5 |
Raster (Worldclim)
3* |
Most suitable: 290–315 Suitable: 265–290 Less Suitable: 240–265 Unsuitable: 211–240 |
Temperature (1km × 1km) |
5 |
Raster (Worldclim)
3* |
Most suitable: 28.5–29.8 Suitable: 27–28.5 Less Suitable: 26–27 Unsuitable: 24.9–26 |
Road |
5 |
Vector (Department of Survey) 4* |
Most suitable: > 500m Suitable: 300–500 m Less Suitable: 200–300 m Unsuitable: < 200m |
Water |
20 |
Vector (Department of Survey) 4* |
Most suitable: within 1km Suitable:
1–1.5 km Less Suitable: 1.5–2 km Unsuitable: > 2km |
Settlement |
10 |
Vector (Department of Survey) 4* |
Most suitable: > 1km Suitable: 0.5–1 km Less Suitable: 0.3–0.5 km Unsuitable: < 0.3km |
Land Cover |
20 |
Vector (Department of Survey) 4* |
Most suitable: river and grassland Suitable: Forest Unsuitable: Cultivation |
1*
http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2015/05/20150518_daichi.html
2*
https://landcover.usgs.gov/glc/TreeCoverDescriptionAndDownloads.php
3* http://www.worldclim.org/tiles.php?Zone=28
4* Department of Survey, Min Bhawan, Kathmandu, Nepal
Results
Habitat Suitability Mapping
Suitability
map based on RS and GIS application showed that only about 0.06% (28.8ha) of
the area was found to be most suitable, approximately 29.18% (13198.23ha) of
the area was found to be suitable, 20.45% (9248.58ha) was moderately suitable
and about 50.31% (22759.65ha) was unsuitable habitat for rhinoceros in the
study area (Fig. 4 (a)).
Vegetation Analysis
Of the
total species of trees recorded in the study area, Shorea
robusta (IVI=56.35) was found to be the most
dominant species followed by Adina cordifolia
(IVI=19.17), Mallotus philipenensis
(IVI=15.43), and Trewia nudiflora
(IVI=15.33). Among shrub species, Leea macrophylla
was the most abundant species (PV=350.49) followed by Chromoleana
odorata (PV=266.84) and Clerodendron
viscosum (PV=258.75), and among herb/grass
species Imperata cylindrica
was the most abundant species (PV=285.33) followed by Cynodon
doctylon (PV=158.85) and Saccharum
spontaneum (PV=98.51).
Threat Analysis
Almost
all the respondents were well informed about rhinoceros. About 10%, 87% and 3% of the respondents
directly saw, heard and saw indirect signs of rhinoceros presence respectively. Particularly, activities of rhinoceros were
found in March to June and October to November. Most of the respondents revealed that
unsuitable habitat in PNP was the major cause of rhinoceros dispersal, followed
by suitable habitat in Rautahat and encroachment in
PNP. A small percentage (10%) of the
respondents had no idea about rhinoceros in the study area (Fig. 5a); 43% of
respondents answered that rhinos and their habitat were needed for biodiversity
conservation; 30% for ecotourism; and 27% for future generations (Fig. 5b).
Among
the 30 respondents of the questionnaire survey, about 37% answered that the
main threat to rhinoceros and its habitat conservation was poaching, 23% of
respondents said conflict, 20% answered that unmanaged habitat was also a
threat to rhinoceros, so their conservation may become difficult. Twenty percent of
the respondents considered environmental factors as one of the threats to
rhinoceros (Fig. 5c). As many as 50% of
the respondents answered that awareness program can be the main program for
rhinoceros conservation, 32% of respondents gave their view that research
programs can help to protect rhinoceros habitat, and 18% of the respondents
said that regular patrolling can be helpful in rhinoceros conservation (Fig.
5d).
Density of species = (Total Number of
individuals of a species) / (Total number of plots sampled × area of a
plot) ......... 1
Relative density of species (RD) = (Total
individuals of species) / (Total individual of all species) ......... 2
Frequency of species = Number of plots in which a particular
species occurs / Total number of plot sampled × 100 ......... 3
Relative frequency of species (RF) = Frequency value of a species /
Frequency value of a species × 100 .......... 4
Relative dominance of species = Total basal area of a species /
Total basal area of all species x 100 ..........
5
Basal area = π d2 / 4 ..........
6
IVI = Relative density + Relative frequency + Relative dominance .......... 7
PVX = MX (√FX) ..........
8
where PVX = prominence value of species
X; MX = mean percentage cover of species X; FX = Frequency of occurrence of species
X
Discussion
Habitat suitability mapping
Rhinoceroses
inhabit the alluvial floodplains with sub-tropical vegetation where water and
green growth is found all year round (Prater 1971; Kafley 2008). The
results of this study reveal that the rhinoceroses in Rautahat
are also found in floodplain grasslands and riverine forest located near
perennial water bodies that provide food, cover and wallows throughout the
year. A study carried out in Bardiya has shown that rhinoceroses prefer three types of
habitat including khair sissoo
forest, riverine forest, and tall grassland, and they avoid Sal forest (Jnawali 1995).
Vegetation Analysis
Our
study has found out that Saccharum spontaneum is the most important grass species for
rhinoceros, which is also reported in earlier studies by Laurie (1982), Jnawali (1995) and Pradhan et al.
(2007). Kafley
(2008) identified the suitable condition for rhinoceros as the areas with the
availability of contiguous grasslands interspersed with sufficient water bodies
and sufficient distance from factors of disturbances. Similarly, this study has shown that
rhinoceros prefers habitat with mixed forest type with grassland and nearness
to water availability. Kafley (2008) documented that 443km2 of the CNP
is modeled as suitable. The result of this study revealed that
131.98km2 of the study area is modeled as
suitable habitat, which provides additional shelter to rhinoceros outside the
protected areas.
No
earlier studies of rhinoceros using GIS and other advanced applications were
performed in the study area. Rhinoceros have been using the study area as major
habitat for a long time, and this year also there was continuity in their
regular visits (Acharya & Ram 2017). So, this study can be the basis for further
studies and management of rhinoceros in Rautahat.
People’s perceptions
Three
to four rhinoceroses are found year-round in Rautahat
District. During September 2016, one rhinoceros was shot by poachers. Rhinoceros have been
using the Rautahat district as a major habitat for
the past few years and continue to make regular visits (Acharya
& Ram 2017). Respondents living in
the study area reported frequent arrival of rhinoceros in their village and
nearby forests. They have a positive
attitude towards rhino conservation because of the importance of the species in
ecotourism, and biodiversity conservation for future generations. Presently, cases of conflict between humans
and rhinoceros are few, but they may increase in the future if concerned
authorities are unable to apply proper conservation measures.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Factors
affecting the population and habitat status of rhinoceros include poaching,
conflict and environmental factors that include roads, rivers, settlements,
forest cover, land cover, precipitation, temperature and terrain. The slope is the most important predictor of
habitat suitability of terrestrial species, and rhinoceros locations were
observed on gentle slopes with suitable vegetation cover and water
availability. According to local people,
the main causes of movement of rhinoceros were unsuitable habitat in PNP,
suitable habitat in Rautahat, and encroachment in
PNP. Unsuitable habitat in PNP is the
result of weeds and dense forest cover due to forest protection. They want to
conserve rhinoceros for ecotourism, biodiversity conservation and for future
generations. The habitat used by
rhinoceros in the study area is outside the protected area and poses threats
like poaching, conflict with local people and unmanaged habitats. Threats to rhinoceros in the Rautahat District need to be identified and suitably
attended. If the government and conservation partners do not pay attention to
this migration of rhinoceros from PNP to a new area like Rautahat
and other suitable places, rhinoceros may decline in PNP. So, it is vital to conserve rhinoceros and
its habitat. Hence, conservation efforts
to create better permanent habitat should be provided to maintain remaining
rhinoceros population.
Based
on the present study, national level policy and conservation programs should be
prepared for the conservation and management of rhinoceros in the study area.
Since the study area is located outside the protected area, regular monitoring
is required and strict laws need to be enforced for the conservation of
rhinoceros. PNP and its
buffer zone up to Bagmati River need to be
extended for better protection of rhinoceros. This research is limited, as only
two rhinoceros were present in the study area.
The available time for the study was also short. We recommend further study to identify
reasons for rhinoceros movement from PNP to the study area.
References
Acharya, H.B. &
A.K. Ram (2017). Extended Rhinoceros unicornis population, habitat monitoring and rescue
from Rautahat district of central Nepal. A report
submitted to Department of National Park and Wildlife
Conservation, Babarmahal, Nepal.
Adhikari, H. &
T. Schneider (2012). Change detection on the cultural landscape in the Philippines with
regards to REDD + pilot area over a period of 21 years. Master Thesis
submitted to Technische Universität
München, Germany; http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2997.5285
Bradley, B. & E. Fleshman
(2008). Can remote
sensing of land cover improve species distribution modeling?
Journal of Biogeography 35: 1158–1159; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.01928.x
Clevenger, A.P., J. Wierzchowski,
B. Chruszcz & K. Gunson
(2002). GIS-generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat
linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conservation Biology
16(2): 503–514; http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00328.x
Crawford, C. (1994). In conflicts between the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species and the EATT in light of actions to
halt the Rhinoceros and Tiger trade. Georgetown International Environmental
Law Review 7: 555.
DFO (2016). Annual Report. District
Forest Office, Rautahat, Nepal.
District Report (2011). Geographic Information.
http://ddcrautahat.gov.np/ne-brief-introduction/? (Assessed 21.05.2018)
Government of Nepal (1973). National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Act.
IUCN (2008). IUCN Red List
Categories. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.
Jnawali, S.R. (1995). Population ecology of greater one-horned
Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) with
particular emphasis on habitat preference, food ecology and ranging behavior of a reintroduced population in Royal Bardiya National Park in Low land Nepal. A
doctor scientiarum thesis submitted to Agricultural
University of Norway, i–vii, 128pp.
Kafley, H. (2008). Habitat evaluation and suitability modeling of Rhinoceros unicornis
in Chitwan National Park,
Nepal: A geospatial approach. A report submitted to Aloca
Foundation, Institute of International Education, World Wildlife Fund, USA.
Kushwaha, S.P.S., A. Khan & B. Habib (2005). Evaluation of Samber and Munjtak habitats using geostatistical
modelling. Current Science Association 86:
1390–1400.
Laurie, W.A. (1978). The ecology and behavior of the Greater One-horned Rhinoceros. PhD
Dissertation. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Laurie, W.A. (1982). Behavioral ecology of the Greater One-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis). Journal of Zoological Society
of London 196: 307–341; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1982.tb03506.x
Mandal, G. &
S.P. Joshi (2014). Analysis of vegetation dynamics and phytodiversity
from three dry deciduous forests of Doon Valley, Western Himalaya, India.
Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7: 292–304; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2014.07.006
MoFSC (2015). Strategy and Action Plan 2015–2025, Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal. Ministry of
Forests and Soil Conservation, Singha Durbar,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Pradhan, N.M.B., P. Wegge,
S.R. Moe & A.K. Shrestha (2007). Feeding ecology of two endangered
systematic mega-herbivores; Asian Elephant (Elephus maximus)
and Greater One-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis)
in lowland Nepal. Wildlife Biology 14(1): 147–154; http://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2008)14[147:FEOTES]2.0.CO;2
Prater, S.H.
(1971). The Book of Indian
Animals. Bombay Natural History Society, Twelfth
Reprint 2005, 324pp.
Rookmaaker, K., A. Sharma, J. Bose, K. Thapa, D. Dutta, B. Jeffries,
A.C. Williams, D. Ghose, M. Gupta & S. Tornikoski (2016). The Greater One-horned Rhino-Past,
Present and Future, WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Smith, R.L. (1980). Ecology and Field
Biology - 3rd Edition. Harper and Row
Publishers, New York, xii+835pp.
Talukdar, B.K., R. Emslie,
S.S. Bist, A. Chaudhary, S.
Ellis, B.S. Bonal, M.C.Malakar,
B.N. Talukdar & M. Burva
(2008). Rhinoceros
unicornis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2008: e. T 19496A8928657. Downloaded on 03 July 2018; http://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T19496A8928657.en
Thapa, R. (2016). Challenges of rhino
conservation in Chitwan National Park. Journal of Nepal Science Olympiad 1:1-13.
Thapa, T.B. &
J. Lichtenenegger (2005). Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) habitat evaluation in Bardiya National Park using Remote Sensing and GIS. Decadal Proceedings of UN-EAS-SIDA Training Course Application,
1–9pp.
Tripathi, S., S. Rayamajhi & L. Puri (2012). A GIS-based approach to
habitat suitability of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus
arnee) on the Rapti
floodplain of Chitwan National Park. Thesis
submitted to Tribhuvan University.
Verner,
J., M.L. Morrison & C.J. Ralph (1986). Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates:
based on an international symposium held at Stanford Sierra Camp, Fallen Leaf
Lake, California, 7–11 October 1984 University of Wisconsin Press.