Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 July 2020 | 12(10): 16210–16218
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5206.12.10.16210-16218
#5206 | Received 29 June 2019 | Final
received 16 June 2020 | Finally accepted 02 July 2020
Living with Leopard Panthera pardus fusca (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae): livestock
depredation and community perception in Kalakkad-Mundanthurai
Tiger Reserve, southern Western Ghats
Bawa Mothilal
Krishnakumar 1, Rajarathinavelu
Nagarajan 2 & Kanagaraj Muthamizh Selvan 3
1,2 PG and Research Department of
Zoology and Wildlife Biology, A.V.C. College (Autonomous), (Affiliated to
Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli), Mannampandal,
Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu 609305, India.
1,3 Department of Ecology &
Environmental Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Pondicherry University, R.V.
Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry 605014, India.
2 Centre for Research in Animal
Behaviour (CRAB), Department of Psychology, Washington Singer Laboratories,
University of Exeter, Perry Road, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK.
3 Project Elephant, Ministry of
Environment Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran
Bhawan, New Delhi 110003, India.
1 maduraisauf@gmail.com, 2 oystercatcher@rediffmail.com,
3 tamildove@gmail.com (corresponding author)
Editor: Hemanta Kafley,
Tarleton State University, Texas, USA. Date of
publication: 26 July 2020 (online & print)
Citation: Krishnakumar,
B.M., R. Nagarajan & K. M. Selvan (2020). Living with Leopard Panthera pardus fusca (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae): livestock
depredation and community perception in Kalakkad-Mundanthurai
Tiger Reserve, southern Western Ghats. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(10): 16210–16218. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5206.12.10.16210-16218
Copyright: © Krishnakumar
et al. 2020. 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: This research was funded
by DST-INSPIRE (Faculty
Award/IFA13-LSBM84), Ministry of Science
& Technology, Department of Science
& Technology, Government of India.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: B.M. Krishnakumar is a PhD student in PG and Research Department of Zoology &
Wildlife Biology at A.V.C. College (Autonomous) (Affiliated to Bharathidasan
University, Tiruchirappalli). He has previously worked in Department of Ecology
and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry University, under the DST-INSPIRE
Project. Dr.
K. Muthamizh Selvan graduated in MSc Wildlife
Biology from Bharathidasan University, then entered India’s Wildlife Institute,
where he worked on big sympathetic carnivores at Pakke
Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh. He holds a PhD in wildlife sciences from the
Saurashtra University, Gujarat. Upon completing his PhD, he received the
DSTI-INSPIRE Faculty Award from the Science and Technology Department and
Joined in Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry
University as a DST-INSPIRE Faculty Awardee. He has also guided several
post-graduation students for their dissertation. He currently works at Project
Elephant Cell, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi
as Scientist D’ cum Joint Director. Dr. R. Nagarajan was
Commonwealth Scholar and an Early Career Awardee of Leverhulme
Trust, London, and currently is Principal in A.V.C. College (Autonomous) &
Head, PG and Research Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology, conducting
research in behavioural ecology of wildlife pertaining to foraging and nesting
and research theme includes factors influencing population of wildlife,
nest-selection and life-history strategies of birds, role of Barn-Owl in rodent
pest control. He has published more than 100 research articles in peer-reviewed
national and international journals and also guided PhD scholars in Wildlife
Biology.
Author contribution: Conceptualization-—BMK, KMS and
RN; methodology—KMS, and RN; formal analysis—BMK, KMS and RN; conducting field
work—BMK; preparing manuscript—All author contributed equally.
Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Tamil Nadu
Forest Department for granting the permission to conduct the study at KMTR. We
are grateful to DST-INSPIRE faculty program for financial support. We give
special thanks to Head of the Department of Ecology and Environmental Science,
Pondicherry University. This research is part of first author’s PhD
dissertation in Wildlife Biology and he extend his sincere thanks to the
Management and Principal of A.V.C. College (Autonomous) for necessary support
to this study. We thank the Chief Conservator of Forest and Field Director of Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve for permission to carry
out research at KMTR. We are extremely thankful to all administrative staff in
KMTR, in particular, Mr. Velladurai, Mr. Ilango and Mr. Karthikeyan for all the support and
hospitality during our stints in KMTR. We extend a special word of thanks to
Mr. M. Manikandan, Mr. P. Radhakrishnan, and Mr. Sanjeev for assisting in the
field. First author acknowledges Dr. B. Navaneethan
and Dr. Ravichandra Mondreti who improved the manuscript by editing earlier
versions. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article that greatly
improved our manuscript.
Abstract: Livestock depredation by large
carnivores and retaliatory killings have become worldwide conservation
issues. Leopard depredation of livestock
across their range undermines public support for their conservation, resulting
in contentious coexistence between the leopard and humans. Lack of knowledge on the patterns of
livestock depredation often hinders the formulation of effective conservation
management policies. We conducted a
questionnaire survey on 656 respondents to assess the extent of livestock
depredation and their attitudes towards leopards. Leopard kills included goats (49%) as the
main prey, followed by the domestic dog (28%), hen (12%), sheep (5%),
cow (4%), and cat (2%). Our results show
that depredation varied significantly across seasons (KW = 30.33, df = 2, P < 0.05); 47% of domestic animals were killed
during monsoon, followed by 33% in winter, and 20% in summer. Leopards killed 49.96% of goats as they
grazed, 50% of sheep when tethered at the house, 67% of cows while in the corral,
and 59% of dogs while they roamed freely around the house. Though local people experienced significant
levels of livestock losses, about 68% expressed positive attitudes towards
leopard conservation. Positive attitudes
were revealed by their awareness about conservation and by moral consciousness
towards killing of animals, which is forbidden in their religion. In the present study site, fodder cultivation
and stall feeding would reduce the grazing-related attack. Similarly, simple changes in the husbandry
practices such as closed fence type instead of stockade, effectively reduce
enclosure-related depredation.
Keywords: Attitude, depredation,
human-wildlife interaction, KMTR, Leopard, livestock kill.
Introduction
Globally, the interaction between people and wildlife is
ubiquitous and has been one of the main daunting challenges to wildlife
conservation (Khorozyan et al. 2015). The ever-increasing human population
encroaching habitats of large carnivores has resulted in a major reduction in
their habitat which is also essential for their prey species to endure and
thrive (Mijiddorj et al. 2018). In consequence, carnivores pose a direct,
real or perceived threat to humans and livestock resulting in human and
livestock losses (Dhungana et al. 2019). Depredation of livestock is the most frequent
between humans and large carnivores (Linnell et al. 2001; Mwakatobe
et al. 2013). It becomes extremely grave
when rural people reside close to the protected areas and share the space as
that of wildlife (Khorozyan et al. 2015). Other influential factors include high
predator density following successful reintroduction or conservation effort (Suryawanshi 2013; Sidhu et al. 2017), low density of
natural prey (Meriggi & Lovari
1996; Mizutani 1999; Stoddart et al. 2001; Polisar et al. 2003), abundance of livestock (Bagchi
& Mishra 2006), rainfall (Patterson et al. 2004; Woodroffe & Frank
2005; Dhungana et al. 2019), livestock husbandry
practices (Meriggi & Lovari
1996; Ciucci & Boitani
1998; Stahl et al. 2001; Madhusudan 2003; Ogada et
al. 2003), lack of anti-predatory behaviour in
livestock (Landa
et al. 1999; Bagchi & Mishra 2006), and
characteristics of attacked farms, villages, and livestock enclosures (Mech et
al. 2000; Ogada et al. 2003). Areas that provide concealment for carnivores
to come within range of livestock without being seen (Woodroffe & Ginsberg
1998) is also one of the important influencing factors
Among the big cats, the leopard
is the most widespread species (Nowell & Jackson 1996) across Africa, Asia,
and from the Middle East to the Pacific Ocean (Jacobson et al. 2016). Presently, it occupies 25–37 % of its
historic range (Jacobson et al. 2016).
Regardless of large range and greater adaptability, the IUCN Red List
assessment (2016) has categorized the species as Vulnerable owing to >30%
decline of their population worldwide over three generations (Stein et al.
2016) following habitat loss, hunting, prey reduction, and negative
interactions with humans (Ripple et al. 2014; Jacobson et al. 2016). The Indian subspecies, Panthera
pardus fusca, exists in
all the forested habitats of the country, and is absent only in the arid
deserts and above the timberline in the Himalaya (Prater 2005; Ramesh
2010). In the Western Ghats, it occupies
an area of c. 43,353km2 (Jhala et al.
2008)
Historically, there is continuous
interaction between humans and large carnivores in India (Seidensticker
& Lumpkin 1991). Among the large
carnivores, the leopard is reported to cause the greatest percentage of livestock
depredation in certain regions (Sangay & Vernes 2008; Dar et al. 2009; Karanth
et al. 2013; Thorn et al. 2013). This
creates a hostile attitude towards leopards among the local people,
occasionally leading to the persecution or retaliatory killing of the leopard (Athreya & Belsare 2007; Ogra 2008; Lorraine 2014; Acharya et al. 2016). Conservation of large carnivores is of great
concern when local communities present a negative attitude towards them (Lucherini & Merino 2008).
Lack of knowledge on the patterns
of livestock depredation often hinders the formulation of effective
conservation management policies. An
explicit understanding of the extent of livestock depredation inclusive of
areas, periods with high levels of depredation, and perception of local
communities is crucial to address human-carnivore negative interactions (Dar et
al. 2009). Though predation of livestock
by large carnivores has been widely studied in India (Badola
1998; Bagchi & Mishra 2006; Allendrof
2007; Ogra 2008; Selvan 2013; Athreya
et al. 2013; Bhatia et al. 2013; Suryawanshi et al.
2014; Acharya et al. 2016), the pattern of livestock depredation in the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in Tamil Nadu
(hereafter referred as KMTR), remains unclear, hence impeding the development
of effective leopard conservation and conflict management strategies.
Basing on the above premise, we
investigated the degree of livestock predation by leopard and the attitudes of
local communities towards conservation of large carnivores in KMTR. We hypothesized high percentage of livestock
depredation during monsoon season as the increased plant productivity would
facilitate stalking cover for leopard.
Our present study will provide an important baseline for further
research and evaluation of conservation initiatives aimed at leopards and
carnivores in general. Further, we also
proposed the conservation implications of the present study and discussed the
practical actions to mitigate the human-leopard interactions.
Material
and methods
Study area
KMTR (900km2) is
located in the Asahmbu Hills, in the Agasthiyamalai region (8.357–8.33° N & 77.169–77.574°
E), at the southern end of the Western Ghats, in Tamil Nadu, India (Figure
1). The terrain is mountainous with
elevation ranging 100–1,866 m and the vegetation type ranges from dry thorn
scrub to montane evergreen forest. KMTR
receives rainfall from both southwest (June–September) and northeast
(October–January) monsoons. The annual
rainfall is about 3,000mm, and the temperature fluctuates between 17°C and 37°C over a year. KMTR
is bordered by agricultural lands with human settlements (about 145 villages)
in the east (Arjunan et al. 2006), whereas in the
west there are extensive forests of Kerala.
The rivers Peyar, Karaiyar,
Kavuthalaiyar, Servalar, Chithar, and Pambar and their
tributaries drain into a perennial river called the Tamiraparani. The sympatric carnivore species include the
Tiger Panthera tigris,
Leopard Panthera pardus
and Wild Dog Cuon alpinus. The major wild ungulate prey species
available to these sympatric carnivores are Gaur Bos gaurus,
Sambar Rusa unicolor, Spotted Deer Axis
axis, Wild Boar Sus
scrofa, Nilgiri Tahr Hemitragus hylocrius, Barking Deer Muntiacus
muntjak, and Indian Chevrotain Moschiola indica. Additionally, several smaller prey species
such as Tufted Grey Langur Semnopithecus priam priam, Nilgiri Langur Semnopithecus
johnii, Bonnet Macaque Macaca
radiata, Lion-tailed Macaque Macaca silenus, Indian Hare Lepus nigricollis,
Indian Crested Porcupine Hystrix indica, Indian Giant Squirrel Ratufa
indica, Indian Peafowl Pavo
cristatus, Grey Junglefowl Gallus sonneratii, and Red Spurfowl Galloperdix
spadicea also exist (Johnsingh
2001). The reserve also supports Sloth
Bear Melursus ursinus
and wide diversity of medium and small-sized carnivores such as Jungle Cat Felis chaus,
Leopard Cat Prionailurus bengalensis, Rusty Spotted Cat Prionailurus
rubiginosus, Common Palm Civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus,
Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica, Brown Palm Civet Paradoxurus
jerdonii, Grey Mongoose Herpestes
edwardsii, Ruddy Mongoose Herpestes
smithii, Brown Mongoose Herpestes
fuscus, and Stripe-necked Mongoose Herpestes vitticollis
(Mudappa 1998; Johnsingh
2001; Mudappa et al. 2007). The people inhabiting in this region are
either agro-pastoralists or pastoralists. Local people raise cattle, sheep and goats,
herded them during the day to the foothill of KMTR and brought back home.
Data collection and analyses
The data for the present study
were collected between the years December 2016 and December 2018. The sample included 19 randomly selected
villages along one kilometer distance from the eastern boundary of the
reserve. Incidents of livestock
depredation and the attitudes of local residents were investigated through
questionnaires distributed to 656 respondents.
Majority of the livestock graze at the foothills of KMTR, usually
attended by herdsman, and occasionally by domestic dogs. Respondents included resident adults (≥ 18
years old) were interviewed (Suryawanshi et al.
2014). All the interviewees were assured
of anonymity, and were priory informed of the aims and objectives of the study,
befor their participation in the interview. The questionnaire was divided into two
sections, wherein the first section provided information on the following
aspects to assess the pattern of predation: (1) species of livestock killed
(goat, sheep, dog, hen, and cow), (2) season, (3) activity of livestock at the
time of kill (grazing, corral, tethered at house, untethered at house, and
guarding), and (4) attack by large carnivore on family members within the
previous three years. The second section
was structured questionnaire that was scored as described by Suryawanshi et al. (2014) to understand the attitudes of
the local people towards conservation of leopards. The questionnaire in the second section
included the following questions: 1) Do you support the conservation of
leopards in KMTR? 2) Would you like to see a leopard in your village or
agricultural land? 3) Do you think the conservation of these animals is
beneficial for the environment of KMTR? 4) What should be done when a leopard
kills your livestock? The total of
scores could vary from -2 to 2, with -2 signifying the most negative attitude
on a relative scale and 2 signifying the most positive reply. Attitude scores of -1 and -2 was considered
negative and 0 was considered unsure, whereas scores > 1 were considered
positive (Suryawanshi et al. 2014). To determine the difference in livestock
depredation by leopards, the Kruskal-Wallis one way ANOVA was used. All the analyses were conducted in R v.
3.5.2. (R development Core Team 2018).
Results
Livestock depredation by leopard
Of the 656 respondents, 62.3% (n
= 409) were males and 35.1% were females (n = 230). Among female respondents 2.6% (n = 17)
refused to participate. The oldest
respondent was 95 years old, and the mean age was 47.0 ± 12.3 SD. During 2017–2018, a total of 233 domestic
animals were reportedly killed by leopards.
Leopards primarily killed goat Capra aegagrus
hircus (49%), followed by domestic dog Canis lupus familiaris
(28%), hen Gallus gallus domesticus
(12%), sheep Ovis aries
(5%), cow Bos taurus (4%), and cat Felis catus (2%)
(Figure 2). Livestock depredation was
recorded in all the surveyed villages.
Among the sampled villages, we found Pethanpillaikudiyiruppu
(27%), Anavankudiyiuruppu (17%), and Vembaiyapuram (12%) to be highly prone to depredation. According to the respondents in 19 villages,
none of the fatal attacks on human beings or kills by large carnivores had
occurred in the park in the last three years.
There was significant difference
in livestock depredation by leopards among various seasons (KW = 30.33, df = 2, P < 0.05).
About 47% (n = 108) domestic animals were killed during monsoon,
followed by 33% (n = 74) in winter and 20% (n = 46) in summer (Figure 3). Correspondingly, 29% (n = 66) attacks were
during day time and 71% (n = 162) during night, and the difference was
marginally significant (KW = 45.82, df = 1, P <
0.05). The presence of a herdsman while
livestock were grazing did not deter leopard attack, in any of the cases. About 58% (n = 108) livestock had been
depredated while grazing and 25% (n = 47) while in the corral. In terms of location of livestock prior to
attack, 50% (n = 54) of goats were killed while grazing, whereas, 50% (n = 6)
sheep were killed when tethered near to the house, 67% (n = 6) cows were killed
in the corral (Figure 4), and 59% (n = 38) dogs had been killed while roaming
freely around the house (Figure 5).
There was significant difference in location of livestock depredation
among goats (KW = 50.3, df = 3, P < 0.05) and dogs
(KW = 36, df = 3, P < 0.05), whereas this was not
significant in case of sheep (KW = 3.5, df = 3, P
> 0.05) and cows (KW = 5.15, df = 3, P > 0.05).
Local people’s attitude
Despite the livestock depredation,
the respondent’s (68%) overall attitude towards conservation of leopards was
generally positive, while 22% were unclear about conservation. There was significant difference between
gender, with the males exhibiting more support towards leopard conservation
than females (χ2 = 55.4, df = 2, P <
0.05). About 74% of the respondents
opined to not wanting the leopard within the village or agricultural land,
while 2% differed with this, and there was no significant difference between
the genders (χ2 = 7.3, df = 2,
P>0.05). Among the respondents, only
5% of them showed positive attitudes towards support large carnivore
conservation in KMTR, while 51% were unsure and 44% exhibited negative
attitudes. There was significant
difference between gender, with the males being more aware of large carnivore
conservation in KMTR than females (χ2 = 67.1, df=2,
P < 0.05). Respondents were asked
about their views on livestock predation by leopard. Of them, only 27% replied that leopard should
be translocated to another area, while 26% replied could not do anything about
it, 18% accepted their livestock loss, 13% were unsure about this and finally
8% of each respondents replied leopards should be eliminated from their area
and they also require food. In the
interest of examining the level of interaction following the translocation programme, the effectiveness of such operations were
questioned. For which 72% respondents
replied the programmes being inefficient. Out of 136 livestock (goat, sheep, and cow)
depredation, only 25% people had applied for compensation, while 75% did
not. In most instances, people were
dissatisfied with the compensation provided by the forest department for
livestock losses.
Discussion
Livestock depredation by leopard
Our study showed that leopards
mostly predated on medium-sized livestock, such as goats and sheep (54% of all
killings), and hence it is concurs with the report of Sangay
& Verne (2008), and Dar et al. (2009).
Though, leopard kill wide range of prey species, from arthropods to
adult sambar or gaur (Seidensticker 1976), they
usually prefer prey species weighing between10–40 kg (Hayward et al. 2006) and
2–25 kg (Lovari et al. 2013). The optimal body size of goats (5–25 kg; Lovari et al. 2013) combined with their non-defensive behaviour, and the relative ease of killing and lugging to
a safe place after extermination (Kabir et al. 2013) may have contributed to
higher goat depredation rates in KMTR.
It was found that among the
sampled villages, Pethanpillaikudiyiruppu, Anavankudiyiuruppu, and Vembaiyapuram
were highly prone to livestock depredation.
Davidar (2018) reviewed the terms used in
human-wildlife conflict. As the areas
located close to the forest boundary and frequently had significant livestock
depredation and therefore the areas are considered as conflict hotspots. More incidents of depredation occurred during
monsoon compared with summer. This could
be ascribed to highest rainfall during monsoon resulting in increased
vegetation cover such as shrub and undergrowth which provide good cover for
leopards (Balme et al. 2007) as recorded elsewhere
(Patterson et al. 2004; Kolowski & Holekampt 2006).
Though livestock was killed in corral or shed, 58% of livestock kill
were reported when grazing near the forest boundary, since animals grazing near
protected areas expose them to predators.
Such grazing associated losses are common elsewhere, and often difficult
to limit or alter (Karanth & Nepal 2012; Karanth et al. 2012), however, it is suggested that cultivation
of fodder and stall feeding could be effective against such grazing associated
depredation. Livestock in corrals are
usually safe against predators (Kaczensky 1999), but
still suffer predation in KMTR. In the
present study, it was observed that the corral or shed was covered on four
sides with a palisade to a height averaging four feet either with a top cover
or the shed had only the top cover.
Thus, imperfect sheds with restricted movement of livestock made them
vulnerable to predation at night compared with daylight. Similar depredation
patterns were observed in the Bandhavgarh Tiger
Reserve (Chouksey et al. 2017), Pir
Lasoora National Park (Kabir et al. 2017), and the
Macharia National Park (Kabir et al. 2013; Dar et al. 2009). Even with such experience, the livestock
owners did not appear to improve the shed to reduce further loss (Krishnakumar pers. obs. 2018), and were more likely to
devote time and resources to improve their livestock protection
strategies. Husbandry practices can
significantly impact the risk of livestock predation by large carnivores (Ogada et al. 2003; Stein et al. 2010). Therefore, fencing livestock instead wooden
stockade could effectively reduce enclosure related depredation.
The dog was the most killed
domestic animal than livestock, as 59% of them were killed when roaming freely
around the house. Since the dog is
reared for the purpose of guarding, it is left untethered, making it vulnerable
to predation which can be easily killed and dragged. In addition, the dog plays a significant role
in the diet of leopards across India (Mukerjee &
Mishra 2001; Edgaonkar & Chellam
2002; Athreya et al. 2004). In spite of the fact that dogs are impotent
against a leopard attack, local villagers rear dogs believing that livestock
losses would be higher without dogs, and that a leopard would attack humans in
the absence of dogs. This kind of
thinking has been observed in Iran also (Khorozyan et
al. 2017).
Local people’s attitudes
The support of local people and
their contribution to the conservation of carnivores is mostly due to the value
they place on large carnivores (Gusset et al. 2009). In the present study, majority of the
respondents presented an optimistic attitude towards the leopard and its
conservation. This may be attributed to
awareness about conservation, and to some extent, moral conscience or being
forbidden by their religion to kill animals, and may help potential long-term
conservation of this species in the reserve.
More positive attitudes towards leopard conservation were observed among
men when compared with women, and is probably ascribed to greater fear about
carnivores in women (Zaffar et al. 2015), who tend to
dislike fearsome species (Schlegel & Rupf
2009). In most cases, men tended to have
a more positive attitude towards conservation than women (Butler et al. 2003; Røskaft et al. 2007).
Majority of the respondents were disinclined to see the leopard either
in their village or agricultural land due to fear. All the respondents expressed dissatisfaction
over the existing compensation scheme, and were unwilling to report cattle
losses by predators to the local wildlife authority due to the long
administrative process that resulted in delayed payments, insufficiency in
amount, and precondition for applying compensation such as difficulties in
verifying leopard attacks.
The capture and translocation of
problematic animal is the existing mitigation policy and is most widely used in
India, besides the compensation payment (Athreya et
al. 2010). In KMTR, the forest managers
are often forced to remove animals in response to complaints from people. But such translocation programme
does not appear to reduce the level of negative interactions, however, 27% of
the respondents expressed that the depredating leopard should be translocated,
may be because in certain villages, it had not been translocated so far. Translocation of carnivores can have
undesirable effects (Athreya et al. 2010), as
majority of post translocation studies have reported that such animals perish
due to capture-related stress, injuries, and extensive post release movements
(Linnell et al. 1997; Miller et al. 1999; Letty et al. 2007). Moreover, following translocation, carnivores
often reappear at the captured site in a relatively short time (Rogers
1988). A few studies have reported that
translocated carnivores continue to engage in greater negative interactions
(Stander 1990; Bradley et al. 2005).
The high proportion of livestock
loss is attributed to leopards in the present study area, and hence is of prime
concern. Educating people to improve
livestock husbandry skills is highly recommended. Although people are infuriated due to
livestock depredation by leopards, they do not persecute them as in other parts
of central Asia (Mishra & Fitzherbert 2004) because of strict
statutes. Considering the increasing
number of depredations by leopards in human-dominated habitats outside KMTR,
where communities might incur significant economic loss, the conservation of
leopards will depend on support from local communities. This can be ensured by addressing the issue
of human-leopard interactions in an effective manner. It is also emphasized that assessing the
extent of predation alone is not likely to lead to effective conservation
planning as people are hostile towards wildlife officials. Field experience has shown that crop damage
is a significant responsible factor for negative attitude towards the staff of
the forest department, so reducing crop damage could have a strong positive
effect.
References
Acharya,
K.P., P.K. Paudel, P.R. Neupane
& M. Köhl (2016). Human-Wildlife Conflicts in
Nepal: Patterns of Human Fatalities and Injuries Caused by Large Mammals. PLoS ONE 11(9): e0161717.
Allendrof, T.D. (2007). Residents’ attitudes towards
three protected areas in South Western Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation
16: 2087–2102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9092-z
Arjunan, M.H.J., P. Christober,
J.P. Puyravaud & P. Davidar
(2006). Do
developmental initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case
study from the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve,
India. Journal of Environmental Management 79: 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.007
Athreya, V., M. Odden,
J.D.C. Linnell & K.U. Karanth (2010). Translocation as a tool for
mitigating conflict with leopards in human-dominated landscapes of India. Conservation
Biology 25(1): 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01599.x
Athreya, V., M. Odden,
J.D.C. Linnell, J. Krishnaswamy & K.U. Karanth
(2013). Big cats in
our Backyards: Persistence of Large Carnivores in a Human Dominated Landscape
in India. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057872
Athreya, V.R. & A.V. Belsare (2007). Human-leopard conflict
management guidelines. Kaati Trust, Pune, India,
69pp.
Athreya, V.R., S.S. Thakur, S. Chaudhuri
& A.V. Belsare (2004) A study of the man-leopard
conflict in the Junnar Forest Division, Pune
District, Maharashtra. Submitted to the Office of the Chief Wildlife Warden,
Nagpur. Maharashtra Forest Department and the Wildlife Protection Society of
India, New Delhi, India, 89pp.
Badola, R. (1998). Attitudes of local people
towards conservation and alternatives to forest resources: A case study from
the lower Himalayas. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1245–1259.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100884551
Bagchi, S. & C. Mishra. (2006). Living with large carnivores:
predation on livestock by the snow leopard (Uncia
uncia). Journal of Zoology 268(3):
217–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2005.00030.x
Balme, G., L. Hunter & R. Slotow (2007). Feeding habitat selection by hunting Leopards Panthera pardus in a woodland
savanna: prey catchability versus abundance. Animal Behaviour
74(3): 589–598; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.12.014
Bhatia, S.,
V. Athreya, R. Grenyer
& D.W. Macdonald (2013). Understanding the Role of Representations of Human-Leopard Conflict in
Mumbai through Media-Content Analysis. Conservation Biology 27: 588–594.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12037
Bradley,
E.H., D.H. Pletscher, E.E. Bangs, K.E. Kunkel, D.W.
Smith, C.M. Mack, T.J. Meier, J.A. Fontaine, C.C. Niemeyer & M.D. Jimenez
(2005). Evaluating
wolf translocation as a non-lethal method to reduce livestock conflicts in the
northwestern United States. Conservation Biology 19: 1498–1508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00102.x
Butler, J.S.,
J. Shanahan & D.J. Decker (2003). Public attitudes towards
wildlife are changing: a trend analysis of New York residents. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 31: 1027–1036.
Chouksey, S., V.S. Tomar
& A. Bijalwan (2017). Human Leopard Conflict in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve: The Emerging Drift and Community
Perspective. Indian Journal of Ecology 44(1): 58-62.
Ciucci, P. & L. Boitani
(1998). Wolf and dog
depredation on livestock in central Italy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:
504–514.
Dar, N.I.,
R.A. Minhas, Q. Zaman & M. Linkie (2009). Predicting the patterns,
perceptions and causes of human–carnivore conflict in and around Machiara National Park, Pakistan, Biological Conservation
10: 2076–2082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.003
Davidar, P. (2018). The term human-wildlife conflict
creates more problems than it resolves: better labels should be considered. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 10(8): 12082–12085. http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4319.10.8.12082-12085
Dhungana, R., B. Ram, T. Savini, M, Dhakal, B. Sagar & J. Bahadur (2019). Livestock depredation by
leopards around Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Mammalian Biology 96:
7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.03.006
Edgaonkar, A. & R. Chellam.
(2002). Food habit
of the leopard, Panthera pardus, in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Mammalia
66: 353– 360. https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.2002.66.3.353
Gusset, M.,
M.J. Swarner, L. Mponwane,
K. Keletile & J.W. McNutt (2009). Human-wildlife conflict in
northern Botswana: livestock predation by endangered African Wild dog Lycaon pictus and
other carnivores. Oryx 43: 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605308990475
Hayward,
M.W., P. Henschel, J. O’Brien, M. Hofmeyr, G. Balme & G.I.H. Kerley (2006). Prey preferences of the Leopard (Panthera pardus). Journal of
Zoology 270(2): 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00139.x
Jacobson,
A.P., P. Gerngross, J.R.Lemeris
jr, R.F. Schoonover, C. Anco,
C. Breitenmoser- Würsten,
S.M. Durant, M.S. Farhadinia, P. Henschel, J.F. Kamler, A. Laguardia, S.
Rostro-García, A.B. Stein & L. Dollar (2016). Leopard (Panthera
pardus) status, distribution, and the research
efforts across its range. PeerJ 4:e1974. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1974
Jhala, Y.V., R. Gopal & Q. Qureshi
(2008). Status of
tigers, co-predators and prey in India. National Tiger Conservation Authority,
Govt., of India, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun.
Johnsingh, A.J.T. (2001). The Kalakad-Mundanthurai
Tiger Reserve: A global heritage of biological diversity. Current Science
80(3): 378–388.
Kabir, M., M.
Waseem, S. Ahmad, U.H. Goursi & M.N. Awan (2017). Livestock depredation by
Leopard, an alarming intimidation for its conservation in Pir
Lasoora National Park Nakial,
Azad Jammu and Kashmir. International Journal of Conservation Science 2:
295–302.
Kabir, M.A. Ghoddousi, M.S. Awan & M.N. Awan (2013).
Assessment of human-leopard conflict in Machiara
National Park, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. European Journal of
Wildlife Research 60: 291–296.
Kaczensky, P. (1999). Large carnivore predation on
livestock in Europe. Ursus 11: 59–72.
Karanth, K.K. & S.K. Nepal (2012). Local residents perception of
benefits and losses from protected areas in India and Nepal. Environmental
Management 49(2): 372–386
Karanth, K.K., A.M. Gopalaswamy,
R. DeFries & N. Ballal
(2012). Assessing
patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and compensation around a central Indian
protected area. PLoS ONE 7: e50433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050433PMID:23227173
Karanth, K.K., A.M. Gopalaswamy,
P.K. Prasad & S. Dasgupta (2013). Patterns of human-wildlife
conflicts and compensation: Insights from Western Ghats protected areas. Biological
Conservation 166: 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.027
Khorozyan, I., M. Soofi,
A.K. Hamidi, A. Ghoddousi & M. Waltert (2015). Dissatisfaction with Veterinary
Services Is Associated with Leopard (Panthera
pardus) Predation on Domestic Animals. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0129221. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129221
Khorozyan, I., M. Soofi,
M. Soufi, A.K. Hamidi, A. Ghoddousi
& M. Waltert (2017). Effects of shepherds and dogs on
livestock depredation by leopards (Panthera
pardus) in north-eastern Iran. PeerJ - the Journal of Life and
Environmental Sciences 5:e3049. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3049
Kolowski, J.M. & K.E. Holekamp (2006). Spatial, temporal, and physical
characteristics of livestock depredations by large carnivores along a Kenyan
reserve border. Biological Conservation 8: 529–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.021
Landa, A., K. Gudvangen,
J.E. Swenson & E. Roskaft (1999). Factors associated with
wolverine Gulo gulo
predation on domestic sheep. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 963–973. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00451.x
Letty, J., S.
Marchandeau & J. Aubineau
(2007). Problems
encountered by individuals in animal translocations: lessons from field
studies. Ecoscience 14: 420–431. https://doi.org/10.2980/1195-6860(2007)14[420:PEBIIA]2.0.CO;2
Linnell,
J.D.C., J.E. Swenson & R. Andersen (2001). Predators and people:
conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if
management policy is favorable. Animal Conservation 4: 345–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943001001408
Linnell,
J.D.C., R. Aanes, J.E. Swenson, J. Odden & M.E. Smith (1997). Translocation of Carnivores as a
Method for Managing Problem Animals: a Review. Biodiversity and Conservation
6:1245–1257. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000034011.05412.cd
Lorraine, B.
(2014). Exploring
the causes of and mitigation options for human-predator conflict on game
ranches in Botswana: How is coexistence possible? PhD Thesis. Department of
Zoology. University of Cape Town, 312pp.
Lovari, S., M. Ventimiglia & I.
Minder (2013). Food habits
of two leopard species, competition, climate change and upper treeline: A way to the decrease of an endangered species. Ethology
Ecology and Evolution 25(4): 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2013.806362
Lucherini, M. & M.J. Merino (2008). Perception of human-carnivore
conflicts in the high Andes of Argentina. Mountain Research and Development
28(1): 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0903
Madhusudan,
M.D. (2003). Living
amidst large wildlife: Livestock and crop depredation by large mammals in the
interior villages of Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India. Environmental
Management 31: 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2790-8
Mech, D.L.,
E.K. Harper, T. Meier & W.J. Paul (2000). Assessing factors that may
predispose Minnesota farms to wolf depredations on cattle. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 28: 623–629.
Meriggi, A. & S. Lovari
(1996). A review of
wolf predation in southern Europe: does the wolf prefer wild prey to
livestock?. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1561–1571. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404794
Mijiddorj, T.N., J.S. Alexander & G. Samelius (2018). Livestock depredation by large
carnivores in the South Gobi, Mongolia. Wildlife Research 45(4): 381. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR18009_CO
Miller, B.,
K. Ralls, R.P. Reading, J.M. Scott & J. Estes (1999). Biological and technical
considerations of carnivore translocation: a review. Animal Conservation
2:59–69.
Mishra, C.
& A. Fitzherbert (2004). War and wildlife: a post- conflict assessment of Afghanistan’s Wakhan
corridor. Oryx 38: 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605304000158
Mizutani, F. (1999). Impact of leopards on a working
ranch in Laikipia, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 37: 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.1999.37.2.211
Mudappa, D. (1998). Use of camera-traps to survey
small carnivores in the tropical rainforest of Kalakad–Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Small Carnivore
Conservation 18: 9–11.
Mukherjee, S.
& C. Mishra (2001). Predation by leopard Panthera pardus in Majhatal Harsang Wildlife Sanctuary, W. Himalayas. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 98: 267–268.
Mudappa, D., N.C. Foundation & B.R.
Noon (2007). Responses of
small carnivores to rainforest fragmentation in the southern Western Ghats,
India. Small Carnivore Conservation 36: 18–26.
Mwakatobe, A., J. Nyahongo
& E. Roskaft (2013). Livestock depredation by
carnivores in the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania. Environment and Natural
Resources Research 3: 46–57. https://doi.org/10.5539/enrr.v3n4p46
Nowell, K.
& P. Jackson (1996). Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, IUCN/SSC Cat
Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland, 383pp.
Ogada, M.O., N.O. Oguge,
R. Woodroffe & L.G. Frank (2003). Limiting depredation by African
carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Conservation Biology 17:
1521–1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00061.x
Ogra, M.V. (2008). Human-wildlife conflict and
gender in protected area borderlands: A case study of costs, perceptions, and
vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum
39: 1408–1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.12.004
Patterson,
B.D., S.M. Kasiki, E. Selempo
& R.W. Kays (2004). Livestock depredation by lions (Panthera
leo) and other carnivores on ranches neighboring
Tsavo National Parks, Kenya. Biological Conservation 119: 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.01.013
Polisar, J., I. Maxit,
D. Scognamillo, L. Farrell, M.E. Sunquist
& J.F. Eisenberg (2003). Jaguars, pumas, their prey base, and cattle ranching: ecological
interpretations of a management problem. Biological Conservation 109:
297–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00157-x
Prater, S.H.
(2005). The book of
Indian animals. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.
R Development
Core Team. (2018). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Ramesh, T.
(2010). Prey
selection and food habits of large carnivores: tiger panthera
tigris, leopard panthera pardus and dhole cuon alpinus in Mudumalai Tiger
Reserve, Tamil Nadu. Saurashtra University, Rajkot, xvii+173pp.
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: 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484
Rogers, L.L.
(1988). Homing
tendencies of large mammals: a review. Pages 76–92. In: Nielsen, L. & R.D.
Brown (eds.). Translocation of Wild Animals. Wisconsin Humane Society
and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and
Kingsville, Texas. 333pp.
Røskaft, E., B. Händel,
T. Bjerke & B.P. Kaltenborn (2007). Human attitudes towards large
carnivores in Norway. Wildlife Biology 13: 172–185. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2007)13[172:HATLCI]2.0.CO;2
Sangay, T. & K. Vernes
(2008).
Human–wildlife conflict in the Kingdom of Bhutan: Patterns of livestock
predation by large mammalian carnivores. Biological Conservation 141:
1272–1282. https://doir.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.027
Schlegel, J.
& Rupf (2009). Attitudes towards potential
animal flagship species in nature conservation: a survey among students of
different educational institutions. Journal for Nature Conservation 18:
278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2009.12.002
Seidensticker, J. (1976). On the ecological separation
between Tigers and Leopards. Biotropica 8(4):
225–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/2989714
Seidensticker, J. & S. Lumpkin (eds.).
(1991). Great
Cats. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA, 240pp.
Selvan, K.M.
(2013). Ecology of
sympatric large carnivores in Pakke Tiger Reserve,
Arunachal Pradesh. PhD Thesis. Department of Wildlife Science, Saurashtra
University, xvii+216pp.
Sidhu, S., G.
Raghunathan, D. Mudappa & T.R.S. Raman (2017). Conflict to Coexistence: Human –
Leopard Interactions in a Plantation Landscape in Anamalai
Hills, India. Conservation and Society 15(4): 474–482.
Stahl, P.,
J.M. Vandel, V. Herrenschmidt
& P. Migot (2001). Predation on livestock by an
expanding reintroduced lynx population; long-term trend and spatial
variability. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00625.x
Stander, P.E.
(1990). A suggested
management strategy for stock raiding lions in Namibia. South African
Journal of Wildlife Management 20: 37–43.
Stein, A.B.,
V. Athreya, P. Gerngross,
G. Balme, P. Henschel, U. Karanth,
D. Miquelle, S. Rostro-Garcia, J.F. Kamler, A. Laguardia, I. Khorozyan & A. Ghoddousi (2016). Panthera
pardus (errata version published in
2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
e.T15954A102421779. Downloaded on 22 January 2020. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T15954A50659089.en
Stein, A.B.,
T.K. Fuller, D.T. Damery, T. Sievert & L.L.
Market (2010). Farm
management and economic analyses of leopard conservation in north-central
Namibia. Animal Conservation 13: 419–427.
Stoddart,
L.C., R.E. Griffiths & F.F. Knowlton (2001). Coyote responses to changing
jackrabbit abundance affect sheep predation. Journal of Range Management
54: 15–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/4003521
Suryawanshi, K.R. (2013). Human-carnivore conflicts:
understanding predation ecology and livestock damages by snow leopards. Ph.D.
Thesis. Manipal University, Manipal, India, ix+149pp.
Suryawanshi, K.R., S. Bhatia, Y.V.
Bhatnagar, S. Redpath & C. Mishra (2014). Multiscale Factors Affecting
Human Attitudes toward Snow Leopard and Wolves. Conservation Biology
28(6): 1657–1666. https://doi/org/10.1111/cobi.12320
Thorn, M., M.
Green K. Marnewick & D. Scott (2013). Characteristics and determinants
of human–carnivore conflict in South African farmland. Biodiversity and
Conservation 22(8): 1715–1730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0508-2
Woodroffe, R.
& J.R. Ginsburg (1998). Edge effects and the extinction
of population inside protected areas. Science 280: 2126–2128.
Woodroffe,
R., & L.G. Frank (2005). Lethal control of African lions (Panthera
leo): local and regional population impacts. Animal
Conservation 8: 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943004001829
Zaffar, R.M., N. Athar, H. Bilal &
G.V. Gopi (2015). Attitudes
of Local People Toward Wildlife Conservation: A Case Study from the Kashmir
Valley. Mountain Research and Development 35(4): 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00030.1