Journal of Threatened Taxa | | 26 July 2020 | 12(10): 16230–16238



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


#5754 | Received 03 February 2020 | Final received 04 July 2020 | Finally accepted 10 July 2020




Negative human-wildlife interactions in traditional agroforestry systems in Assam, India


Yashmita-Ulman 1, Manoj Singh 2, Awadhesh Kumar 3  & Madhubala Sharma 4


1 Department of Silviculture and Agroforestry, College of Horticulture & Forestry, Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh 224229, India.

2 Department of Zoology, Kalinga University, Near Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492101, India.

3,4 Department of Forestry, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli, Arunachal Pradesh 790109, India.

1 (corresponding author), 2,

 3, 4




Editor: Mewa Singh, University of Mysore, Mysuru, India.          Date of publication: 26 July 2020 (online & print)


Citation: Yashmita-Ulman, M. Singh, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2020). Negative human-wildlife interactions in traditional agroforestry systems in Assam, India.  Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(10): 16230–16238.


Copyright: © Yashmita-Ulman 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: CSIR, New Delhi funded the project titled “Studies on Contribution of Agroforestry Systems in Wildlife and Biodiversity Conservation in Northeast India”, Sanction No. 37(1585)/13/EMR-II.


Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.


Author details: Dr. Yashmita-Ulman, works as Assistant Professor in Department of Silviculture & Agroforestry, ANDUAT, Ayodhya, on agroforestry systems.  Her research interests include plant-animal interactions, forest ecology and wildlife conservation. Dr. Manoj Singh works as Assistant Professor in Department of Zoology, Kalinga University, Chhattisgarh. He is working on bird acoustics and wildlife conservation using GIS.  Dr. Awadhesh Kumar works as an Associate Professor in Department of Forestry, NERIST (Deemed-to-be-University), Nirjuli, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. He works on population and beahvioural ecology of threatened mammalian species and other wildlife of northeast India. His interest lies in ecological process related to wildlife conservation and forest management under the umbrella of forestry research. Professor (Mrs.) Madhubala Sharma also works in the Department of Forestry, NERIST (Deemed-to-be-University), Arunachal Pradesh. She is specialized in the field of wood science & technology and non-timber forest products.


Author contribution: Y-U did the fieldwork and wrote the article. MS helped with the data compilation and analysis. AK and MS edited and finalized the manuscript.


Acknowledgements: We are extremely grateful to all the owners of the agroforestry systems, viz. home gardens, agrisilviculture and tea garden for permitting to carry out the present study as well as for sharing valuable information about presence of wildlife and human-wildlife interactions.  Authors are thankful to Director and Head of Department, Forestry for their administrative support and to CSIR, New Delhi for providing financial support.




Abstract: Traditional agroforestry systems are designed to provide maximum and diverse yield (ranging from agricultural crops, forest trees, livestock and fish) to people.  They also act as sources of food and shelter to wild animals leading to crop destruction, livestock depredation and injuries to people giving rise to negative human-wildlife interactions.  The present study was carried out in three different agroforestry systems namely tea gardens, homegardens, and agrisilvicultural systems in Assam to document the attitude of people towards wild animals which damage the crops and livestock, through questionnaire surveys.  In agroforestry systems, 13 animals were reported as destructive; rodents at 13% followed by Indian Hare at 12%.  The least destructive were birds and bats with 4% each.  In tea gardens majority of the people killed animals for meat (95%) and the most common method for killing was the use of catapults (77%).  In homegardens and agrisilvicultural systems, owners chased the animals away (82%) by using catapults (68%).  Hunting of animals and intolerance of people towards crop destruction and livestock depredation done by wild animals were the two main reasons causing negative human-wildlife interactions in agroforestry systems.  The present study concludes that wildlife species found in the agroforestry system in Assam were threatened by local inhabitants and thus, a suitable conservation awareness and policy action plan should be developed in consultation with the owners of agroforestry systems by considering the ecological significance of the wildlife species found therein.


Keywords: Agrisilvicultural systems, agroforestry systems, crop destruction, destructive wildlife species, homegardens, tea gardens.






Agroforestry system is a traditional cultivation practice carried out in Assam, a northeastern state of India (Yashmita-Ulman et al. 2018).  This system includes growing of agricultural crops along with trees.  Agroforestry systems are also frequently used by wild animals either as food resources (Lees & Peres 2008; Lenz et al. 2011; Mueller et al. 2014) or for shelter or as a corridor (Kumar et al. 2004; Yashmita-Ulman et al. 2020). As these systems are close to human habitations and mainly human-centric as a product of centuries, decades or years of destruction of natural forests or wilderness areas, they are prone to negative human-wildlife interactions, usually inappropriately called ‘conflicts’. The two main threats to wildlife in agroforestry systems are: (i) killing of animals as revenge for crop damage or livestock depredation and (ii) hunting for subsistence or as a part of culture and tradition or for trade.  Conover & Chasko (1985) found that 89% of farmers in Kansas, USA, were of an opinion that wildlife caused damage in the farms.  There are many such reports on crop predation. Elephants are known to be the most destructive wild animals (Shrivastava 2002).  They feed on ripened paddy, banana, coconut, corn (Nyhus et al. 2000; Bandara & Tisdell 2002; Santiapillai et al. 2010; Bal et al. 2011; Chartier et al. 2011), maize, millet, sorghum, green gram, soyabean, cowpeas, mustard, beans, green chillies (Bandara & Tisdell 2002), vegetables (Kumar et al. 2004), and cashew nut (Varma et al. 2008).  The macaques feed on maize and wheat (Wang et al. 2006).  In cacao plantations of Cameroon, squirrels, primates (Chimpanzee, Agile Mangabey, Moustached Guenon) and Sitatunga Antelopes destroy ripen pods of cacao causing very serious damage (Arlet & Molleman 2010).  They also reported that the cacao growers either hunted or used passive methods like making noise, guarding, and using scarecrows to drive away these animals and thus prevent or reduce the damage caused.  So, in most cases, the wild animals like elephants (Nyhus et al. 2000; Kushwaha & Hazarika 2004; Santiapillai et al. 2010) and primates (Wadley et al. 1997; Hill 1997) are killed by people in revenge for crop destruction.

Hunting in northeastern India has both economic and cultural importance (Aiyadurai 2007; Velho & Laurance 2013).  There are many studies in northeastern India which suggest that hunting is a serious threat to many wild species (Pawar & Birand 2001; Datta 2002; Mishra et al. 2006).  Hunting has a more negative effect on the abundance and diversity of mammals than the vegetation disturbance (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; Datta et al. 2008).  Naughton-Treves et al. (2003) in Tambopata, Peru observed that the farmers living near forests experienced crop raiding and livestock losses and to offset these losses, they resorted to hunting.  So, all these are some of the threats that wild animals face in most agroforestry systems which might otherwise act as a second home or refuge for wild animals.  This study is designed to identify the reasons for negative human-animal interactions in agroforestry systems and the methods used for killing these wild animals.  Questionnaire surveys were conducted to 1) document the factors responsible for such human-wildlife interactions (types of crops destroyed or livestock killed, attitudes of people and their response in form of tolerance or retaliation by killing), 2) identify the most destructive wild animal in different agroforestry systems, and 3) document the methods used to kill, chase or avoid wild animals in different agroforestry systems.





Two districts of Lakhimpur and Sonitpur (undivided) located on the north bank landscape of Bramhaputra River were selected for the documentation of human-wildlife interactions in agroforestry systems in Assam (Fig. 1).  Homegardens and agrisilvicultural systems were chosen from both the districts while the tea gardens were chosen only from Sonitpur District.  Lakhimpur district is situated approximately between 26.800–27.883 0N & 93.700–94.333 0E. Sonitpur lies between 26.500–27.167 0N & 92.267–93.717 0E covering an area of around 5,324km2.  Tea garden tribes, Mishing, Bodos, Assamese, Nepalis, and Bengalis are some of the predominant ethnic groups living in the study area (Namsa et al. 2011).





A questionnaire survey was conducted from September 2016 to February 2017 in the selected study areas.  A total of 148 respondents, which included 54 agrisilvicultural system owners, 54 homegarden owners and 40 tea gardens labourers were interviewed.  All these 148 respondents interviewed were the ones who worked in these agroforestry fields (homegarden and agrisilvicultural system owners themselves worked in their respective lands but in tea gardens, labourers were employed and therefore, tea garden labourers were interviewed and not the tea garden owners).  All the respondents were well aware of the wild animals causing destruction and the type of destruction caused.  Information was collected on the wildlife species sighted, crops destroyed by wildlife species in the agroforestry system and the preventive measures adopted to control the loss.  They were questioned over the prevalent techniques used for hunting and killing of wild animals (Mishra et al. 2006).  Any wild animal product like skin, bone, trophy, and hunting tools kept in their houses were photographed for identification and confirmation of threat.  To find out the most destructive animal for the crops and livestock in agroforestry systems as per owners’/labourers’ opinion, the method used by Ahire & Kumar (2006) was followed.  In this method, the owners were asked to give a score (1–13) to each animal they viewed as destructive for their crops and livestock in their agroforestry system.  The most destructive animal had the highest score and the rest of the animals got the score in descending order. 





The major destruction done by wild animals inhabiting the agroforestry systems was crop damage.  The details of the crops destroyed by the various wildlife species in the different agroforestry systems are presented in Table 1.  In all the three agroforestry systems combined, 13 animals were reported as destructive for the crops and livestock present in the agroforestry systems (Fig. 2).  The most destructive wildlife species were rodents (13%) followed by Indian Hare Lepus nigricollis (12%) (Fig. 2).  The least destructive were birds and bats (4% each) (Fig. 2).

Homegardens recorded the highest number of destructive animals (13) (Fig. 3), followed by agrisilvicultural systems (8) (Fig. 4) and the lowest was found in tea gardens (7) (Fig. 5).  Out of the 13 animals viewed as destructive in homegardens, Hoary-bellied Himalayan Squirrel Callosciurus pygerythrus (15%) was reported to be the most destructive followed by Indian Grey Mongoose Herpestes edwardsii  (13%) (Fig. 3).  The least destructive was Indian porcupine Hystrix indica (2%) (Fig. 3).  Among the eight wildlife species recorded as destructive in agrisilvicultural systems, the most destructive animal was rodent (29%) followed by birds (23%) and the least destructive was Indian Porcupine (6%) (Fig. 4).  Out of the seven destructive wildlife species reported in tea gardens, Asian Elephant Elephas maximus (24%) followed by Wild Boar Sus scrofa (19%) were the most destructive animals in tea gardens (Fig. 5).  The least destructive was the Rhesus Macaque Macaca mulatta (5%) (Fig. 5). 

In all the three agroforestry systems as a whole, majority (59%) chased the wild animals away followed by killing of the animals (37%) and the least tolerated the presence of wildlife in their agroforestry systems (4%) (Fig. 6).  Among the chasing techniques, the most common was use of catapults (49%) followed by use of scarecrow (7%) and the least common was the use of drums and noise to chase the animals away (3%) (Fig. 7).  The most frequently used killing methods was the use of catapults (28%) followed by leg traps, bows and arrows (3% each) and the least used methods were sticks, air rifles and poison (1% each) (Fig. 7).  About 4% respondents chose to ignore the presence of wildlife in their agroforestry systems (Fig. 7).  It was observed that 82% of the respondents in both homegardens and agrisilvcultural systems chased the animals away, 13% killed the animals for meat as well as a kind of retaliation for livestock depredation and the remaining 5% ignored the menace caused by wildlife (Fig. 6).  The highest number of respondents (68%) used catapults to chase the animals, 10% made use of scare crows, 8% killed the animals with catapult, 5% ignored the presence of animals, 4% used drums or other forms of noise to scare away the animals, 3% used leg traps, and 2% used poison to kill the animals (Fig. 7).  The trend was different in tea gardens.  It was observed that in the tea gardens, majority of the respondents (95%) killed the animals for meat, 3% chased the animal away and 2% chose to ignore the presence of the animal (Fig. 6).  Among the various methods used to kill the animals the most common was the use of catapults (77%) followed by use of bows and arrow (9%) and leg traps (5%) (Fig. 7).  The least used method was use of stick and air rifles (2%) each (Fig. 7).  The pictographic representation of the animals killed by the agroforestry system owners and the methods used by them are shown in Plate 1 & 2. 





In the current study, animals like elephants, wild pigs, porcupine, hare, rodents, rhesus macaque, jungle cats, birds and bats were reported as destructive animals in agroforestry systems.  Squirrel was recorded as top most destructive animal in homegardens and rodents in agrisilvicultural systems.  The squirrels were notorious for damaging the cash crop yields of Areca nut Areca catechu, Coconut Cocos nucifera, Pepper vines Piper spp., etc.  The rodents and birds were known to destroy paddy crops, bamboo seeds, etc. and the bats were observed feeding on the fruits of Lychee Litchi chinensis, Wax Jambu Syzygium samarangense.  Yashmita-Ulman et al. (2017) observed flocks of Baya Weaver Ploceus philippinus feeding on mature paddy grains in agroforestry systems.  Similar observations of crop depredation by rabbits (Conover 1994) and by birds (Gillingham & Lee 2003; Naughton-Treves & Treves 2005) have been reported.  Some other small mammals like mongoose and Small Indian Civet were also reported to be destructive in the homegardens of the current study area.  These were reported to depredate upon the livestock (hens, ducks, pigeons, and goats) reared by the homegarden owners.  Similar results were obtained by Weladji & Tchamba (2003).

In the current study, animals like elephants, wild pigs, porcupine, rabbits, rodents and rhesus macaques were recorded to destroy the young tea seedlings and uproot the shade trees in tea gardens.  Similarly, elephants are reported to damage the coffee bushes, fruit trees and associated pepper vines (Bal et al. 2011) and roots of shade tree Indian Coral Tree Erythrina mysorensis in coffee agroforests of southern India (Kumar et al. 2004).  The Wild Boars and porcupines are reported to dig the root systems of tea plants causing damage to the tea gardens (Kumara et al. 2004) in the Western Ghats of India.

Conover & Chasko (1985) in Kansas, USA observed that 56% of the farmers reported that the losses incurred due to wildlife were higher than they were willing to tolerate.  Similar results were found in the present study where it was observed that in the tea gardens, 95% of the respondents killed the animals for meat and 13% of the respondents in homegardens killed wildlife in retaliation and for meat.  Only 2% respondents in tea gardens and 5% in homegardens choose to ignore or tolerate the presence of the wild animals.  Killing small carnivores in retaliation for depredation of livestock is similar to other studies by Datta et al. (2008) and Lyngdoh et al. (2011).  All these factors may explain such high rate of killing of wildlife in the current study area.

In the present study, methods like making sounds through clapper and drum, using catapults, scarecrows were usually employed by the local people to chase the wild animals away from their agroforestry systems.  Similar methods were also used to control wildlife damage in Bhutan (Wang et al. 2006), Indonesia (Marchal & Hill 2009) and Rajasthan (Chhangani et al. 2010).  The homegarden and agrisilvicultural system owners belong to the Kalita caste who usually neither indulge in hunting nor is it a part of their tradition.  As a result, these people either tolerated the animals or tried to deter the wildlife species present in the agroforestry systems to protect their crops.  Only very few killed the wild animals in doing so.  Whereas, the labourers in tea gardens are tribes and indulge in hunting as a part of their culture and food habits.  The tea tribes used primitive hunting techniques like catapults, bows & arrows and leg traps to hunt the animals for bush meat.  Similar hunting techniques were observed in Arunachal Pradesh (Aiyadurai 2011) and the Western Ghats (Gubbi & Linkie 2012).





The main cause of negative human-wildlife interactions is the lower rate of tolerance of humans to crop and livestock depredation by wild animals in the agroforestry systems of Assam.  Another major factor which contributes to killing of wild animals is the practice and tradition of people.  The fact that majority of the people in tea gardens resorted to hunting of wild animals primarily for subsistence or as a tradition and also killed them as a revenge for livestock depredation and crop destruction is a matter of concern.  But the brighter side is that the homegarden and agrisilvicultural system owners prefer to chase the animals using catapults which shows positive signs for their conservation.  Understanding people’s attitude towards wild animals in their agroforestry systems helps to develop wildlife conservation strategies in agroforestry systems which otherwise provides refuge to wild animals in the current scenario of deforestation and habitat loss. 



Table 1. Record of wildlife species for crop destruction in selected agroforestry systems.



Name of animal

Crops destroyed/other problems





Elephas maximus (Asian Elephant)

Oryza sativa (Rice),  Zea mays (Maize), Bambusa spp. (Bamboo)

Musa spp. (Banana), Bambusa spp. (Bamboo), Areca catechu (Areca nut), Cucurbita moschata (Squash), Cocos nucifera (Coconut)

Uprooted shade trees and Camellia sinensis (Tea) plants


Macaca mulatta (Rhesus Macaque)

Oryza sativa (Rice), Mangifera indica (Mango), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit)

Oryza sativa (Rice), Vigna unguiculata (Cowpea), Vigna mungo (Black gram), Moringa olerifera (Drumstick), Areca catechu (Areca nut), Mangifera indica (Mango), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit), Carica papaya (Papaya), Citrus spp., Musa spp. (Banana), Psidium gujava (Guava), Piper spp. (Pepper), Luffa cylindrical (Sponge gourd), Luffa acutangula (Ridge gourd), Cucurbita moschata (Squash), Lagenaria siceraria (Bottle gourd), Abelmoschus esculentus (Okra), Daucus carota (Carrot), Allium cepa (Onion), Pisum sativum (Peas), Phaseolus lunatus (Lima bean), Saccharum officinarum (Sugarcane), Solanum tuberosum (Potato), Ananas comosus (Pineapple)



Sus scrofa (Wild Boar)

Oryza sativa (Rice)

Oryza sativa (Rice), Vigna unguiculata (Cowpea), Vigna mungo (Black gram), Solanum tuberosum (Potato), Manihot esculenta (Cassava), Daucus carota (Carrot), Allium cepa (Onion), Ananas comosus (Pineapple)

Uprooted shade trees and Camellia sinensis (Tea) seedlings


Herpestes edwardsii (Indian Grey Mongoose)


Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp. (Duck), Columba livia domestica (Pigeon) and fish



Felis chaus (Jungle Cat)


Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp. (Duck), Columba livia domestica (Pigeon) and fish



Callosciurus pygerythrus (Hoary-bellied Himalayan Squirrel)

Oryza sativa (Rice), Mangifera indica (Mango), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit), Syzygium cumini (Jamun)

Cocos nucifera (Coconut), Musa spp. (Banana), Citrus grandis (Pomelo), Carica papaya (Papaya), Citrus reticulata (Madarin orange), Pyrus communis (Pear), Syzygium cumini (Jamun), Terminalia chebula (Myrobalan), Elaeocarpus floribundus (Indian olive), Phaseolus lunatus (Lima bean), Luffa acutangula (Ridge gourd), Trichosanthes anguina (Snake gourd), Cucurbita moschata (Squash),  Cucumis sativus (Cucumber)



Viverricula indica (Small Indian Civet)


Musa spp. (Banana), Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp. (Duck), Columba livia domestica (Pigeon)



Vulpes bengalensis (Indian Fox)


Capra spp. (Goat), Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp. (Duck)




Oryza sativa (Rice)

Oryza sativa (Rice), Vigna unguiculata (Cowpea), Vigna mungo (Black gram), Solanum tuberosum (Potato), Manihot esculenta (Cassava), Daucus carota (Carrot), Allium cepa (Onion), Ananas comosus (Pineapple), Cucurbita moschata (Squash), Lagenaria siceraria (Bottle gourd)

Cuts shade trees and Camellia sinensis (Tea) plants roots


Lepus nigricollis (Indian Hare)

Oryza sativa (Rice)

Musa spp. (Banana), Brassica juncea (Mustard), Brassica oleracea (Cabbage), Abelmoschus esculentus (Okra), Solanum tuberosum (Potato), Cucurbita moschata (Squash), Lagenaria siceraria (Bottle gourd), Pisum sativum (Peas), Raphanus sativus (Raddish), Spinacia oleracea (Spinach), Solanum lycopersicum (Tomato), Daucus carota (Carrot)

Uprooted shade trees and Camellia sinensis (Tea) plants seedlings


Hystrix indica (Indian Porcupine)

Oryza sativa (Rice)

Solanum tuberosum (Potato), Alocasia spp.

Uprooted shade trees and Camellia sinensis (Tea) plants seedlings



Syzygium samarangense (Wax Jambu), Mangifera indica (Mango), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit)

Mangifera indica (Mango), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit), Citrus spp., Musa spp. (Banana), Litchi chinensis (Lychee), Psidium gujava (Guava), Syzygium samarangense (Wax Jambu)



Varanus bengalensis (Bengal Monitor)


Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp.




Oryza sativa (Rice),Terminalia chebula (Myrobalan), Syzygium samarangense (Wax Jambu), Mangifera indica (Mango), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit)

Oryza sativa (Rice), Vigna unguiculata (Cowpea), Vigna mungo (Black gram), Terminalia chebula (Myrobalan), Musa spp. (Banana), Psidium gujava (Guava), Averrhoa carambola (Star fruit), Phaseolus lunatus (Lima bean),  Capsicum spp., Fish





Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, fish



ASS=Agrisilvicultural system, HG=Homegarden, TG=Tea garden.


For figures & images - - click here




Ahire, M. & B. Kumar (2006). Training needs of rural girls. The Allahabad Farmer 11: 28–33.

Aiyadurai, A. (2007). Pheasant hunting: a cultural practice in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India. The International Newsletter of the World Pheasant Association 79: 6–7.

Aiyadurai, A. (2011). Wildlife hunting and conservation in Northeast India: a need for an interdisciplinary understanding. International Journal of Galliformes Conservation 2: 61–73.

Arlet, M.E. & F. Molleman (2010). Farmer’s perceptions of the impact of wildlife on small-scale cacao cultivation at the northern periphery of Dja Faunal Reserve, Cameroon. African Primates 7(1): 27–34.

Bal, P., C.D. Nath, K.M. Nanaya, C.G. Kushalappa & C. Garcia (2011). Erratum to: Elephants also like coffee: Trends and drivers of human-elephant conflicts in coffee agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu, Western Ghats, India. Environmental Management 48: 263–275.

Bandara, R. & C. Tisdell (2002). Asian elephants as agricultural pests: economics of control and compensation in Sri Lanka. Natural Resources Journal 42: 491–519.

Chartier, L., A. Zimmermann & R.J. Ladle (2011). Habitat loss and human-elephant conflict in Assam, India: does a critical threshold exist? Oryx 45(4): 528–533.

Chhangani, A.K., P. Robbins & S.M. Mahnot (2010). Major threats to the faunal diversity of Kumhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in the Aravalli hills of Rajasthan. Indian Forester 136(10): 1410–1421.

Conover, M.R. (1994). Perceptions of grass-roots leaders of the agricultural community about wildlife damage on their farms and ranches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22(1): 94–100.

Conover, M.R. & G.G. Chasko (1985). Nuisance Canada Goose Problems in the Eastern Unites States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(3): 228–233.

Datta, A. (2002). Status of hornbills and hunting among tribal communities in eastern Arunachal Pradesh. Unpublished report. Wildlife Conservation Society and WCS-India Program, Bangalore, India, 72pp.

Datta, A., R. Naniwadekar & M.O. Anand (2008). Occurrence and conservation status of small carnivores in two protected areas in Arunachal Pradesh. Small Carnivore Conservation 39: 1–10.

Gillingham, S. & P.C. Lee (2003). People and protected areas: a study of local perceptions of wildlife crop-damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oryx 37(3): 316–325.

Gubbi, S. & M. Linkie (2012). Wildlife hunting patterns, techniques, and profile of hunters in and around Periyar Tiger Reserve. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 109(3): 165–172.

Hill, C.M. (1997). Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: the farmer’s perspective in an agricultural community in western Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management 43(1): 77–84.

Kumar, M.A., D. Mudappa, T.R.S. Raman & M.D. Madhusudan (2004). The elephant hills: Conservation of wild Asian elephants in a landscape of fragmented rainforests and plantations in the Anaimalais, India. CERC Technical Report No. 10, Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, Karnataka, India. pp. 98.

Kumara, H.N., A.M. Kumar, A.K. Sharma, H.S. Sushma, M. Singh & M. Singh (2004). Diversity and management of wild mammals in tea gardens in the rain-forest regions of the Western Ghats, India: a case study from a tea estate in the Anaimalai hills. Current Science 87: 1282–1287.

Kushwaha, S.P.S. & R. Hazarika (2004). Assessment of habitat loss in Kameng and Sonitpur Elephant Reserves. Current Science 87: 1447–1453.

Lees, A.C. & C.A. Peres (2008). Avian life-history determinants of local extinction risk in a hyper-fragmented neotropical fragmented landscape. Animal Conservation 11: 128–137.

Lenz, J., W. Fiedler, T. Caprano, W. Friedrichs, B.H. Gaese, M. Wikelski & K. Bohning-Gaese (2011). Seed-dispersal distributions by trumpeter hornbills in fragmented landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278: 2257–2264.

Lyngdoh, S., G.V. Gopi & B. Habib (2011). Hunting record of a Spotted Linsang Prionodon pardicolor from Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Small Carnivore Conservation 44: 27–28.

Marchal, V. & C. Hill (2009). Primate crop-raiding: a study of local perceptions in four villages in North Sumatra, Indonesia. Primate Conservation 24: 107–116.

Mishra, C., M.D. Madhusudan & A. Datta (2006). Mammals of the high altitudes of western Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Himalaya: an assessment of threats and conservation needs. Oryx 40(1): 1–7.

Mueller, T., J. Lenz, T. Caprano, W. Fiedler & K. Bohning-Gaese (2014). Large frugivorous birds facilitate functional connectivity of fragmented landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 684–692.

Namsa, N.D., M. Mandal & S. Tangjang (2011). Anti-malarial herbal remedies of northeast India, Assam: An ethnobotanical survey. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 133: 565–572.

Naughton-Treves, L. & A. Treves (2005). Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. In: Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.). People and Wildlife: Conflict or co-existence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 497pp.

Naughton-Treves, L., J.L. Mena, A. Treves, N. Alvarez & V.C. Radeloff (2003). Wildlife survival beyond park boundaries: the impact of slash-and-burn agriculture and hunting on mammals in Tambopata, Peru. Conservation Biology 17(4): 1106–1117.

Nyhus, P.J., R. Tilson & Sumianto (2000). Crop-raiding elephants and conservation implications at Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx 34(4): 262–274.

Pawar, S. & A. Birand (2001). A survey of amphibians, reptiles, and birds in Northeast India. In. Centre for Ecological Research and Conservation, Mysore, India, 118pp.

Santiapillai, C., S. Wijeyamohan, G. Bandara, R. Athurupana, N. Dissanayake & B. Read (2010). An assessment of the human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Biological Science 39(1): 21–33.

Shrivastava, R.J. (2002). Natural resource use and park-people relations at Kaziranga National Park and world heritage site, India. M.Sc. Thesis, Florida International University, Miami, USA, 193pp.

Varma, S., N.X. Dang, T.V. Thanh & R. Sukumar (2008). The elephants Elephas maximus of Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam: status and conservation of a vanishing population. Oryx 42(1): 92–99.

Velho, N. & W.F. Laurance (2013). Hunting practices of an Indo-Tibetian buddhist tribe in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. Oryx 47(3): 389–392.

Wadley, R.L., C.J.P. Colfer & I.G. Hood (1997). Hunting primates and managing forests: the case of Iban forest farmers in Indonesian Borneo. Human Ecology 25(2): 243–271.

Wang, S.W., P.D. Curtis & J.P. Lassoie (2006). Farmer perceptions of crop damage by wildlife in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(2): 359–365.[359:FPOCDB]2.0.CO;2

Weladji, R.B. & N.M. Tchamba (2003). Conflict between people and protected areas within the Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Oryx 37(1): 72–79.

Yashmita-Ulman, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2017). Traditional homegarden agroforestry systems: habitat for conservation of Baya Weaver Ploceus philippinus (Passeriformes: Ploceidae) in Assam, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(4): 10076–10083.

Yashmita-Ulman, M. Sharma & A. Kumar (2018). Agroforestry systems as habitat for avian species: Assessing its role in conservation. Proceedings of Zoological Society 71: 127–145.

Yashmita-Ulman, M. Singh, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2020). Agroforestry systems: A boon or bane for mammal conservation in northeast India?. Proceedings of Zoological Society