Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18703–18712
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6725.13.7.18703-18712
#6725 | Received 18 September 2020 | Final
received 06 June 2021 | Finally accepted 09 June 2021
Habitat selection of Himalayan
Musk Deer Moschus leucogaster
(Mammalia: Artiodactyla: Moschidae)
with respect to biophysical attributes in Annapurna Conservation Area of Nepal
Bijaya Neupane
1, Nar Bahadur Chhetri 2 & Bijaya
Dhami 3
1,3 Tribhuvan University, Institute
of Forestry, Pokhara Campus, Kaski, 33700, Nepal.
2 Division Forest Office, Myagdi, 33200 Nepal.
1 bijneu@gmail.com (corresponding
author), 2 narbahadurchhetri947@gmail.com, 3 bijaysinghdhami@gmail.com
Editor: L.A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha, India. Date of publication: 26 June
2021 (online & print)
Citation: Neupane, B., N.B. Chhetri
& B. Dhami (2021). Habitat selection of
Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus leucogaster (Mammalia: Artiodactyla:
Moschidae) with respect to biophysical attributes in
Annapurna Conservation Area of Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(7): 18703–18712. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6725.13.7.18703-18712
Copyright: © Neupane et al. 2021. 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: The Rufford Foundation, UK Funding number is 20257-1.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author
details: Bijaya Neupane is an Assistant Professor and
belongs to Department of Park Recreation and Wildlife Management since December
2016. He possesses more than 5 years of research and teaching experiences in
ecology and wildlife conservation in Nepal as well as some field and lab
experiences in Norway and Sweden. Nar
Bahadur Chhetri is a forest Officer; graduated in the M.Sc. Forestry
program and has more than four years of experiences in the wildlife
conservation field. Bijaya Dhami is an
undergraduate final year student and is actively involved in several
conservation activities and is the president of his NGO, one of green
organizations of Pokhara.
Author contributions: Conceptuali-zation and design – BN and NBC; methodology - BN, NBC and
BD; data analysis and interpretations – BN, NBC and BD; conducting field work –
NBC; Preparing manuscript and editorial inputs – All authors contributed
equally; finalizing the manuscript and corresponding to the journal- BN.
Acknowledgements: We are very grateful to The Rufford Foundation, UK for funding with the Small Research
Grant to accomplish this research; Prof. Dr. Santosh Rayamajhi, Tribhuvan,
University, Institute of Forestry, Office of Dean, Kathmandu, Nepal and Dr. Paras Bikram Singh, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing, China for their guidance and support throughout the research; all the
field assistants and local people for their contributions during our fieldwork;
and the anonymous reviewers and editors for their precious time, suggestions,
and comments on the manuscript.
Abstract: Himalayan or White-bellied Musk
Deer Moschus leucogaster,
an IUCN indexed endangered species, is distributed in isolated pockets in the
Himalaya. The deer population is decreasing owing to several pressures that
include habitat loss and fragmentation, and poaching. It is essential to
identify preferred habitat characteristics to support appropriate management
strategies for conserving this endangered species. This study was carried out
in the Nysheang basin of Annapurna Conservation Area
of Nepal to identify habitats preferred by the musk deer. Habitat field parameters
were collected using transect surveys. To analyze
vegetation use and availability, nested quadrate plots size 20 m2
were established. Ivlev’s electivity index (IV) (-1
to +1) was employed to determine habitat preference, and one-way ANOVA (F) and
chi-square tests (χ2) were used to examine different habitat parameters.
Similarly, the importance value index (IVI) of the vegetation was calculated.
Our results showed that the Himalayan Musk Deer strongly preferred habitats at
3601–3800 m altitude (IV= 0.3, F= 4.58, P <0.05), with 21–30º slope (IV=
0.2, F= 4.14, P <0.05), 26–50 % crown cover (IV= 0.25, F= 4.45, P <0.05),
26–50 % ground cover (IV= 0.15, F= 4.13, P <0.05), and mixed forest (IV=
0.29, χ2= 28.82, df= 3, p <0.001). Among the
trees, Abies spectabilis
(IVI= 74.87, IV= 0.035) and Rhododendron arboretum (IVI= 55.41, IV=
0.02) were the most preferred, while Rhododendron lepidotum,
Cassiope fastigiata
(IV= 0.35) and Berberis aristata
(IV= 0.25) were the most preferred shrubs, and Primula denticulata
(IV= 0.87) and Primula rotundifolia (IV= 0.31)
were the most preferred herbs. These preferred habitat conditions should be
maintained and conserved to sustain a viable population of deer in the study
area. Further studies will be required to assess the effects of climate change
on habitat suitability.
Keywords: Climate change, conservation,
habitat suitability, Nysheang Valley, White-bellied
Musk Deer.
INTRODUCTION
Musk Deer under genus Moschus are of
taxonomic, biological, and commercial interest; the latter primarily arising
from the value of the musk produced by adult male deer (Khadka & James
2016). Refined and improved knowledge
has enabled the recognition of seven Moschus
species (Li et al. 2016), with three occurring in Nepal (Satyakumar
et al. 2015): the Black Musk Deer M. fuscus,
Alpine Musk Deer M. chrysogaster of the
eastern Himalaya, and the Himalayan or White-bellied Musk Deer M. leucogaster of the central Himalaya. Based on the mtDNA analysis, Singh et al. (2019) validated that the
southern parts of the Himalaya of Nepal, India, and Pakistan hold the ranges of
two species, Himalayan Musk Deer and Kashmir Musk Deer M. cupreus of western Himalaya and Hindu Kush.
The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 (1973), Nepal (GoN 1973) includes the Musk Deer Moschus
chrysogaster (Image 1) in Schedule-1 as a
“Protected Wildlife” species. Earlier, M. chrysogaster
was believed to be the only Musk Deer species of Nepal. M. fuscus was
believed to be extinct, or not recorded in Nepal (Bhuju
et al. 2007, page 30, 106), and M. leucogaster
was earlier treated as subspecies of M. chrysogaster
(Satyakumar et al. 2015). In the present study,
we have treated the Musk Deer of Annapurna Conservation Area as Moschus leucogaster
(hereby Musk Deer) in central Nepal. The species is categorized as ‘Endangered’
in the IUCN Red List (Harris 2016).
The Musk Deer is a solidary and crepuscular mammal that is found at
higher elevations from 2500 to 4500 m (Green 1986). The species inhabits in the
mountain forest of China, northern India, Bhutan, and Nepal (Green 1986; Grubb
2005). It is confined in protected areas of high mountainous regions of Nepal,
namely Api Nampa Conservation Area (ANCA), Khaptad National Park (KNP), Rara
National Park (RNP), Shey Phoksundo
National Park (SPNP), Sagarmatha National Park (SNP), Dhorpatan
Hunting Reserve (DHR), Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA), Manaslu
Conservation Area (MCA), Langtang National Park (LNP), Makalu Barun National Park (MBNP), and Kanchenjunga Conservation
Area (KCA) (Jnawali et al. 2011; Aryal
& Subedi 2011). Forests of oak, rhododendron,
blue pine, juniper, and grasslands are the preferred habitat types of the Musk
Deer (Green 1986; Kattel & Alldredge
1991).
Habitat preference is an intrinsic behavior
that determines the selection and fitness of species to particular habitat (Jaenike & Holt 1991). It is an element of natural
factors which may prompt to the improvement of asset choice behavior (Boyce & McDonald 1999; Manly et al.
2007). An asset choice may
be forever or briefly exhausted by the action of the
creature (Green 1986). Moreover, habitat
preference is the disproportionality among utilization and accessibility (Manly
et al. 2007). Creatures are liable to contending requests and inspirations for
example, must secure nourishment, discover mates, raise offspring, protect
restricted assets, and maintain a strategic distance from predators. So as to
achieve these goals, their decision of natural surrounding selection is
influenced and balanced over their area in space (Hebblewhite
& Merrill 2009). The majority of the wildlife conservationists have
concentrated on natural surrounding selection for managing the populaces and
anticipating impacts of natural surrounding disturbances (Boroski
et al. 1996). Other than this, however, it can be utilized as an apparatus to
see how environment, behavior and wellness are
connected (McLoughlin et al. 2008; Gaillard et al. 2010). The growing
anthropogenic weight and their following impacts on natural life has been well
seen all around (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
The population of Musk Deer is declining due to several anthropogenic
pressures, including illegal hunting and habitat loss or degradation (Jnawali
et al. 2011) due to human encroachment, firewood collection, etc. (Thapa et al. 2018).
Suitable living space for deer is principally limited to protected areas in
fragmented habitats (Singh
et al. 2018a). As per Shrestha (2012), Musk Deer is
one of the least studied mammals and its population is found in highly isolated
areas. Hence taking all these considerations, our study was focused to identify
and explore the state of the habitats in respect of topographic and vegetation
highlights that portray their habitat preferences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
The Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) is located in the hills and
mountain of west-central Nepal (28.231–29.3360N and 83.486–84.4450E) and covers a
total area of 7,629 km2 under five districts (DNPWC 2016). It is the first and largest conservation area
of the country. To the north, it is bounded by the dry mountainous deserts of Dolpa and Tibet, toward the west by the Dhaulagiri Himal and the Kaligandaki Valley,
toward the east by the Marshyangdi basin, and toward
the south by the valleys and lower regions incorporating Pokhara. It harbors number of faunal species including 488 birds, 23
amphibians, 20 fish, 105 mammals, 40 reptiles and 347 butterflies (DNPWC 2016).
ACA supports living space for several threatened mammal species including
Himalayan Brown Bear Ursus arctos, Red Panda Ailurus
fulgens, Common Goral Nemorhardus
goral, Lynx Felis lynx, Himalayan
Marmot Marmota himalayana, Red Fox Vulpes vulpes, and bird species including Danphe
Lophophorus impejanus,
Lammergier Gypaetus
barbatus, Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos,
Cheer Pheasant Catreus wallichi,
Crimson-horned Pheasant Tragopan satyra (Inskipp
& Inskipp 2001; DNPWC 2016). The
Musk Deer mainly occurs in the valleys of Manang
and Mustang districts of ACA. The Nysheang Valley of Manang (Figure 1), within the north-east portion of ACA is
one of the major pocket areas for Musk Deer (Singh et al. 2018a). It
occupies an area 689.6 km2 and elevation ranging 2,900–7,939 m.
Data Collection
The study was conducted during March of 2018. At that time, the snowfall had decreased and
the melting of snow had accelerated, which aided our investigation. To identify
habitat parameters, a random sampling technique was utilized. Throughout the
study area ‘habitat use plots’ (U) and availability plots (A) were
adopted. On each location where indirect
signs of Musk Deer such as latrine, hair, pugmark, and bed site were observed;
‘habitat use plot’ was established within 50 m distance. Habitat parameters, in
particular the gradient, altitude, crown cover, ground cover and land features
were noted from each plot. ‘Habitat availability plots’ were chosen at 100 m
distance from the use plots in a random direction (Panthi
et al. 2012) and the similar habitat parameters were noted as recorded in the
use plots. ‘Availability plots’ were renamed as ‘use plots’ if signs of the
deer were present in availability plots. Vegetation analysis was performed
within both the use and availability plots. Quadrats of size 20 × 20 m were
placed on each transect at the intervals of 100 m (Singh et al. 2018a). Within the quadrats, nested structured small
quadrats of size 5 × 5 m and 1 × 1 m were laid (Figure 2). Trees (dbh >10cm) were measured in each 20 × 20 m quadrat,
shrubs and sapling (tree species >1 m height and <10 cm diameter) were
measured in 5 × 5 m quadrats and seedlings (tree <1 m in height) were
measured in 1 × 1 m quadrats and those measurements were recorded. Besides, information such as the tree
diameter at breast height (DBH), height, crown cover, number of trees, ground
cover, frequency of tree, shrub and herb as well as signs of animals were
collected within the quadrats.
Data Analysis
Using Ivlev’s electivity index (IV), habitat
preference of deer was analyzed. The IV value ranges
from -1.0 to + 1.0. Habitat preference is indicated by the positive value,
whereas negative value indicates avoidance and finally, 0 values indicate
random use (Ivlev 1964).
For this purpose, following relation was used.
I or IV = (U%-A%) / (U%+A %) (Ivlev 1964; Krebs
1989; Panthi et al. 2012), where U and
A refer to use and availability plots, respectively.
Regarding vegetation analysis, the field data was utilized
to calculate the species richness, frequency and relative frequency, density,
and relative density of tree using following formulae (Smith 1980).
Importance value index (IVI) was calculated as
IVI = Relative density + relative frequency + relative dominance.
Besides, one-way ANOVA and Chi-square test were used to identify the
significances of different habitat variables; crown cover, ground cover, forest
types with respect to Musk Deer presence at 5% level of significance.
RESULTS
Habitat Preferences
Altitude Preference: The Musk Deer mainly preferred altitudinal ranges
of 3,601–3,800 m with (IV= 0.3) (Figure 3). Altitudinal
preference increased from 3201 m to 3800 m in a gradual manner. The altitudinal
range of 3,801–4,000 m (IV= 0.2) was least preferred. Similarly, the region
beneath the elevation 3,200 m (IV= -0.25) and above 4,000 m (IV= -0.8) was
avoided. The utilization of different altitude intervals in extent to their
availabilities was statistically significant (F= 4.58, P <0.05).
Slope Preference: Primarily, the Musk Deer preferred the slope 21º to
30º (IV= 0.2) (Figure
4). Preference slope
expanded in continuous way from 11º to 30º and somewhat
diminished up to 40º. It avoided the slope <10º (IV= -0.25) and >40º (IV=
-0.71). The use of different slopes in extent to their availability was
statistically significant (F= 4.14, P <0.05).
Crown Cover Preference: Mainly, the Musk Deer favored
the crown cover of 26 to 50 % (IV= 0.25) followed by crown cover of 51 to 75 % (IV=
0.05), while 76 to 100 % (IV= -0.65) crown cover was evaded (Figure 5). The utilization of different crown cover in
extent to their availability was statistically significant (F= 4.45, P
<0.05).
Ground Cover Preference: Initially ground cover was partitioned in
4 classes for the analysis. Ground cover
having 26–50 % (IV= 0.15) and 0–25% (IV= 0.09) was mostly preferred by Musk
Deer while it completely avoided 76–100 % cover (IV = -0.75) (Figure 6).
This suggests that it preferred scarce and modest ground cover. The use of
different ground cover in extent to their availability was statistically
significant (F= 4.13, P <0.05).
Since most of pellet was documented in forest, it was figured out that
the Musk Deer preferred forest (IV= 0.15) (Figure 7). The cliff (IV= 0)
and rock (IV= 0) were utilized randomly and the stream-bed (IV= -0.43) was
totally dodged. The use of different ground features in extent to their
availability was statistically significant (F= 3.29, P <0.05).
Forest Types Preference: The proportion of forest types utilized by the
Musk Deer was statistically significant (χ2= 28.82, df=
3, p <0.001). From Figure 8,
it can be concluded that mixed forest (IV= 0.29) was mostly preferred, and the
second preference was for Rhododendron forest (IV= 0.17), whereas, Betula
forest (IV= -0.58) along with alpine scrub (IV= -0.08) were completely avoided
by the Musk Deer.
Influencing Biophysical Variables: Habitat sorts, fuel wood and wood
cutting, rock cover, litter cover and distance to settlements influenced on the
choice of the living space of the Musk Deer where mixed forest, distance to
settlements and litter cover were the foremost and
critical influencing factors (Table 1).
Tree Species Preference: Altogether 15 species of trees were recorded
from 72 plots. Out of 15 tree species,
the Musk Deer showed preference for 12 species and avoidance for 3 species
(Table 2). Tree species that
appeared to have been avoided include Pinus wallichiana
(IVI= 5.82, IV= -0.4), Cupresus spp.
(IVI= 13.77, IV= -0.36) and Sorbus slanata (IVI= 3.54, IV= -0.5).
Shrub Species Preference: A sum of 10 shrub species was documented
within the 72 plots. The Musk Deer preferred Rhododendron lepidotum (IV= 0.35), Cassiope
fastigiata (IV= 0.35), Berberis
aristata (IV= 0.25), and Rhododendron anthopogon (IV= 0.02).
Whereas, Juniperus squamata (IV= -0.15), Incarvillea arguta and Rhododendron
cillatum (IV= -0.14) and Caragana gerardiana (IV= -0.34) were avoided (Table 3).
Herb Species Preference: Out of total 18 herb species documented, the
Musk Deer favored nine species and avoided the
remaining nine species. Primula denticulata (IV=
0.87), and Primula rotundifolia, Primula sikkimensis, Bistorta
macrophylla, Anaphalis triplinervis,
Viola biflora, Primula gembeliana,
Potentilla cuneata and Artemisia
dubia were in the preferred herbaceous
habitat. Whereas, Rumex
nepalensis and Saussurea
deltoidea (IV= -0.35) were the most avoided herb
species, and Anemone demissa, Thalictrum alpinum, Aster albescens, Pedicularis poluninii, Morina nepalensis, and Meconopsis horridula were
in the area avoided by the Musk Deer (Table 4).
DISCUSSION
Habitat usage relies upon factors like the creature’s behavior, length of the day and the time of year
in relation to accessibility of food, shelter, and cover (Green & Kattel 1997). Anthropogenic and natural
factors may also influence accessibility to habitats and modify habitat
preference (Pulliam
& Daielson 1991). It is also possible that
preferences vary among species of the same genus. In this context, without
attempting to specify species level differences, we observed that our base-line
findings (Table 1) on habitat preference by Musk Deer from ACA are comparable
to certain extents with other studies in Nepal and neighborhood.
Khadka & James (2016) found that Musk Deer preferred small patch of
pine and fir forest in the central Himalayas. While in ACA the preferences were
the maximum in mixed forest to the minimum in Betula forest, and the preference
for Rhododendron forest was low, close to that of Betula forest. The preference
for forests of mixed stands and Rhododendron in our study appears similar to
the findings by Shrestha
& Meng (2014) in Gaurishankar Conservation
Area, Nepal.
Concerning
preferences for altitude range, Timmins & Duckworth (2015) suggested that 2,500–4,800 m is the most preferred for M. leucogaster, while Thapa et al. (2019) mentioned
that 3,700–3,800 m was the foremost favored altitudinal extent
for Moschus in Khaptad
National Park, Nepal. Ilyas
(2015) observed that a majority of the latrines of M. chrysogaster in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India occurred
from 4,200 m down to 2,500 m. A study carried out by Srivastava & Kumar
(2018) revealed that Musk Deer preferred the habitat within the altitude range
3,600–3,900 m in Sikkim Himalaya. Likewise, the Musk Deer highly preferred that
altitude range 3,600–3,900 m in Api-Nampa
Conservation Area, Nepal (ANCA 2018). In our study, the species favored the altitudes of 3,600–3,800 m, which is similar to
the altitudinal preference in Api-Nampa Conservation
Area, Nepal and Himalaya of Sikkim. However, elevation alone does not directly
affect the Musk Deer’s distribution. Instead, elevation is correlated with
other climatic predictors like precipitation, temperature and solar radiations
(Elith & Leathwick
2009) that lead to the change in habitat features and its quality to support
the occurrence of the species.
In Api-Nampa Conservation Area, the slopes of
21–30º are highly preferred followed by slopes >40º by Musk Deer and avoid
the slope of 0–10º (ANCA 2018). The study carried by Singh et al. (2018b)
recorded the majority of latrines of Musk Deer in the slope of 20–40º in ACA.
Our study in ACA coincides with these two studies as the principally preferred
slope lie at 20–30º and completely avoid the slopes of 0–10º and >41º. Plain
slope in our study was avoided due to presence of cattle grazing. Shrestha
(2012) also suggested that Musk Deer avoid areas with high human disturbances
like fuel wood collection and cattle grazing. And the slope >41º might have
been avoided because of difficult terrain that resist them escaping from their
predator.
Study carried out by Singh et al. (2018b) reported that Musk Deer prefer
greater crown cover with high shrub diversity. In contrast to this, Musk Deer
preferred moderate crown cover, i.e., 26–50 % in Api-Nampa
Conservation Area (ANCA 2018), which is similar to our study. This is because
the dense cover suppresses the growth of the ground level vegetation due to low
light penetration, which might create the food shortage for the Musk Deer. This insight is supported by the study of Awasti et al. (2003) who recognized Musk Deer as the mixed
feeder, i.e., grazers and browsers.
The thickness of ground cover governs the habitat preference of Musk
Deer. The study carried out by Ilyas (2015) stated
that Musk Deer prefer sparse ground cover. This study is supported by the study
carried out in Api-Nampa Conservation Area where Musk
Deer principally prefer the ground cover of 26–50 % (ANCA 2018), which is
similar to our study in ACA. The dense ground cover is avoided; the reason
could be that it is less friendly since it resists the rapid movement of Musk
Deer that hinders to escape from predator. Singh et al. (2018b) reported that
69 % of the Musk Deer latrines were observed under tree, 26.4 % under canopy,
and 4.6 % under rock. Similar to this study, forest and cave were found to be
preferred and stream bed was found to be avoided in our study, which may be
because the forest and caves are used for thermal requirements and escape
whereas the streams are difficult to move across.
According to Khadka
& James (2016), the Himalayan Musk Deer seems to utilize the
region featured by presence of Pinus species and Abies
species forest with moderately thick canopy cover (26–50 %) on higher elevation
zone (≥ 3600 m) of the northern aspect. These choices are apparently social and
structural adjustments (Futuyma & Moreno 1988). Musk Deer are shy
and elusive creatures (Kattel 1993) with longer rear appendages compared
to forelimbs, an adaptation for living in rough terrain at high elevations. The
domination of Abies species, which have dense
crown cover, protects the area from snow, while the rivers flowing through the
area serve as major water sources for Musk Deer throughout the year.
Data on habitat parameters and their levels of preference recorded from
different protected areas provide valuable baseline data, and offer the scope
for determining micro-habitat for different species of Moschus
in Nepal. Correlations in future when camera traps or molecular studies
enable to have clear knowledge on the profile of species in each protected
area.
CONCLUSION
The Musk Deer appear to have habitually utilized mixed and Rhododendron
stands for defecation and foraging. Deer
occurrence is sparse at lower elevations and higher elevations close to the
tree line, and they are mostly distributed between 3,600 and 4,000 m. Thus
altitudinal ranges of 3,800–4,000 m with mixed and Rhododendron woods adjacent
to water sources are appropriate regions to execute conservation programs to
protect Musk Deer and their environment. The likelihood of pellet presence
diminished with the rise in ground elevation. A total of 15, 10 and 18 species
of tree, shrub and herb were recorded, respectively, in the study area. The
occurrence of Musk Deer was more around the forested area with crown cover of
26–50 %, and the tree species Abies spectablis, Betula utilis,
Acer spp., Rododendron spp.,
Spruce spp., Taxus bacata, Honey suckle, Berberis spp. etc. The terrain with Pinus wallichiana, Cupresus
spp. and Sorbus spp. appear to have
been avoided. Likewise, the deer appear to have preferred areas where we have
listed four species of shrub and nine species of herb, and further studies are
required to assess the habitat suitability of the Musk Deer in response to
climate change.
Table 1. Affiliation of different biophysical
variables with the living space of Musk Deer in the study area.
|
Variables |
Estimate |
SE |
Z-value |
P-value |
|
(Intercept) |
-5.36 |
2.36 |
-2.27 |
<0.05 |
|
Betula forest |
1.44 |
1.67 |
0.85 |
0.39 |
|
Mixed forest |
5.06 |
2.09 |
2.41 |
<0.05 |
|
Rhododendron forest |
1.73 |
1.63 |
1.05 |
0.28 |
|
Distance to settlements |
0.002 |
0.001 |
1.53 |
0.012 |
|
Rock cover |
0.02 |
0.01 |
1.71 |
0.08 |
|
Litter cover |
-0.14 |
0.06 |
-2.20 |
<0.05 |
SE—Standard error.
Table 2. Musk Deer presence and the occurrence of
different tree species in the study area.
|
|
Species |
Relative Density |
Relative Dominance |
Relative Frequency |
IVI |
Ivlev’s Value |
Status |
|
1. |
Abies spectablis |
21.46 |
32.25 |
21.16 |
74.87 |
0.035 |
Prefer |
|
2. |
Rhododendron arboretum |
16.34 |
23.73 |
15.34 |
55.41 |
0.02 |
Prefer |
|
3. |
Betula utilis |
13.66 |
5.3 |
11.82 |
30.78 |
0.01 |
Prefer |
|
4. |
Rhododendron campanulate |
13.9 |
19.55 |
13.4 |
46.85 |
0.034 |
Prefer |
|
5. |
Spruce spp |
7.56 |
2.5 |
7.58 |
17.64 |
0.16 |
Prefer |
|
6. |
Taxus bacata |
5.61 |
4.04 |
6 |
15.65 |
0.15 |
Prefer |
|
7. |
Cupresus spp |
5.85 |
2.1 |
5.82 |
13.77 |
- 0.36 |
Avoid |
|
8. |
Abies pindrow |
4.15 |
1.56 |
4.76 |
10.47 |
0.14 |
Prefer |
|
9. |
Berberis spp |
3.9 |
3.6 |
3.88 |
11.38 |
0.135 |
Prefer |
|
10. |
Honey suckle |
1.71 |
0.98 |
2.65 |
5.34 |
0.12 |
Prefer |
|
11. |
Pinus wallichiana |
2.2 |
0.62 |
3 |
5.82 |
-0.4 |
Avoid |
|
12. |
Sorbus lanata |
0.73 |
1.22 |
1.59 |
3.54 |
-0.5 |
Avoid |
|
13. |
Rododendron anthopogan |
1.46 |
1.19 |
1.41 |
4.06 |
0.12 |
Prefer |
|
14. |
Acer spp |
0.98 |
0.88 |
0.88 |
2.74 |
0.15 |
Prefer |
|
15 |
Sorbus sapling |
0.49 |
0.48 |
0.71 |
1.68 |
0.12 |
Prefer |
|
|
Total |
100 |
100 |
100 |
300 |
|
|
Table 3. Musk Deer presence and the occurrence of
different shrub species in the study area.
|
|
Species |
Ivlev’s value |
Status |
|
1 |
Rhododendron lepidotum |
0.35 |
Prefer |
|
2 |
Cassiope fastigiata |
0.35 |
Prefer |
|
3 |
Berberis aristata |
0.25 |
Prefer |
|
4 |
Rhododendron anthopogon |
0.02 |
Prefer |
|
6 |
Incarvillea argute |
-0.14 |
Avoid |
|
7 |
Rhododendron ciliatum |
-0.14 |
Avoid |
|
8 |
Juniperus squamata |
-0.15 |
Avoid |
|
9 |
Rosa sericea |
-0.29 |
Avoid |
|
10 |
Caragana gerardiana |
-0.34 |
Avoid |
Table 4. Musk Deer presence and the occurrence of
different herb species in the study area.
|
|
Species |
Ivlev's Value |
Status |
|
1 |
Primula denticulate |
0.87 |
Prefer |
|
2 |
Primula rotundifolia |
0.31 |
Prefer |
|
3 |
Primula sikkimensis |
0.2 |
Prefer |
|
4 |
Bistorta macrophylla |
0.16 |
Prefer |
|
5 |
Anaphalis triplinervis |
0.15 |
Prefer |
|
6 |
Viola biflora |
0.14 |
Prefer |
|
7 |
Primula gembeliana |
0.12 |
Prefer |
|
8 |
Potentilla cuneate |
0.04 |
Prefer |
|
9 |
Artemisia dubia |
0.02 |
Prefer |
|
10 |
Anemone demissa |
-0.11 |
Avoid |
|
11 |
Thalictrum alpinum |
-0.13 |
Avoid |
|
12 |
Aster albescens |
-0.15 |
Avoid |
|
13 |
Pedicularis poluninii |
-0.16 |
Avoid |
|
14 |
Morina nepalensis |
-0.16 |
Avoid |
|
15 |
Meconopsis horridula |
-0.2 |
Avoid |
|
16 |
Oxytropis microphylla |
-0.34 |
Avoid |
|
17 |
Saussurea deltoidea |
-0.35 |
Avoid |
|
18 |
Rumex nepalensis |
-0.35 |
Avoid |
For
figures & image – click here
REFERENCES
ANCA (2018). An Assessment of
status, distribution and habitat preferenece of
Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus Chrysogaster) in Api Nampa
Conservation Area (ANCA). (A Case Study of Byas Rural
Municipality). Submitted by: Peoples’ Help Group Dadhikot-9, Bhaktapur,
66pp. Downloaded on 9 June 2021 . http://ancadarchula.gov.np/media/download_attachment/final_report_Musk_deer.pdf
Aryal, A. & A. Subedi (2011). The conservation and potential habitat of the Himalayan Musk Deer Moschur Chrysogaster
in the protected areas of Nepal. International Journal of Conservation
Science 2: 127–141.
Awasti, A., S.K. Uniyal, G.S. Rawat & S. Sathyakumar (2003). Food plants and feeding habits of Himalayan ungulates. Current
Science 85: 719–723.
Bhuju, U.R., P.R. Shakya, T.B. Basnet & S. Shrestha (2007). Nepal Biodiversity Resource Book: Protected Areas, Ramsar
Sites, and World Heritage Sites. International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Government of
Nepal in cooperation with United Nations Environment Programme, Regional Office
for Asia and the Pacific, 161pp.
Boroski, B.B., R.H. Barrett, I.C. Timossi & J.G. Kie (1996). Modelling
habitat suitability for black-tailed deer (Odocoileus
hemionus columbianus)
in heterogeneous landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 88: 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(96)03821-2
Boyce, M.S. & L.L. McDonald (1999). Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution 14: 268–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01593-1
DNPWC (2016). The annual report. Department
of National Park and Wildlife Conservation, Ministry of Forest and Environment,
Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Elith, J. & J.R. Leathwick (2009). Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction
across space and time. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics
40: 677–697. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159
Futuyma, D.J. & G. Moreno (1988). The evolution of ecological specialization. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 19: 207–233.
Gaillard, J.M., M. Hebblewhite, A. Loison, M. Fuller, R. Powell, M. Basille
& B. van Moorter (2010). Habitat–performance relationships: finding the right metric at a given
spatial scale. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences 365: 2255–2265. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0085
GoN (1973). National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.
Nepal Law Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Green, M.J. (1986). The distribution, status
and conservation of the Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus
chrysogaster. Biological Conservation 35:
347–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(86)90094-7
Green, M.J.B. & B. Kattel (1997). Musk Deer: little understood, even its scent. Paper presented at: The
first international symposium on endangered species used in traditional East
Asian Medicine: substitutes for tiger bone and musk; December 7–8; Hong Kong,
5pp.
Grubb, P. (2005). Artiodactyla.
Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 637–722pp.
Harris, R. (2016). IUCN Red List of
threatened species. Version 2020.1. www.iucnredlist.org Downloaded on 9 June 2020.
Hebblewhite, M. & E.H Merrill (2009). Trade-offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant
strategies in a migratory ungulate. Ecology 90: 3445–3454. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2090.1
Ilyas, O. (2015). Status, habitat use and
conservation of Alpine Musk Deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in Uttarakhand Himalayas, India.
Journal of Applied Animal Research 43:
83–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2014.899495
Ivlev, V.S. (1961). Experimental Ecology
of the Feeding of Fishes. University Microfilms, 302pp.
Jaenike, J. & R.D. Holt (1991). Genetic variation for habitat preference: evidence and explanations. The
American Naturalist 137: 67–90.
Jnawali, S.R., H.S. Baral, S. Lee, N. Subedi, K.P. Acharya, G.P. Upadhaya,
M. Pandey, R. Shrestha, D. Joshi, B.R. Lamichhane, J.
Friffiths & A.P. Khatiwada
(2011). The Status of Nepal’s Mammals: The
National Red List Series. Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal, 266pp.
Kattel, B. (1993). Ecology of the Himalayan
Musk Deer in Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal. PhD thesis. Colorado State
University, USA.
Kattel, B. & A.W. Alldredge (1991). Capturing and handling of the Himalayan Musk Deer. Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 19: 397–399.
Khadka, K.K. & D.A. James (2016). Habitat selection by endangered Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus chrysogaster) and
impacts of livestock grazing in Nepal Himalaya: Implications for conservation. Journal
for Nature Conservation 31: 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.03.002
Krebs, C.J. (1989). Ecological Methodology.
Harper and Row, New York, USA.
Li, X., W.V. Bleisch & X. Jiang (2016). Effects of ethnic settlements and land management status on species
distribution patterns: a case study of endangered Musk Deer (Moschus Spp.) in Northwest Yunnan, China. PLoS One 11(5): e0155042. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155042
Manly, B.F.L., L. McDonald, D.L. Thomas, T.L. McDonald & W.P.
Erickson (2007). Resource selection by animals: statistical
design and analysis for field studies. Springer Science & Business Media.
McLoughlin, P.D., T. Coulson & T. Clutton-Brock
(2008). Cross-generational effects of habitat and
density on life history in red deer. Ecology 89: 3317–3326. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1044.1
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World
Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Panthi, S., A. Aryal, D. Raubenheimer,
J. Lord & B. Adhikari (2012). Summer diet and
distribution of the Red Panda (Ailurus Fulgens Fulgens) in Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve, Nepal. Zoological Studies
51(5): 701–709.
Pulliam, H.R. & B.J. Danielson (1991). Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on
population dynamics. The American Naturalist 137: 50–66.
Satyakumar, S., G.S. Rawat & A.J.T. Johnsingh
(2015). Order Artiodactyla,
Family Moschidae Evolution, Taxonomy and
Distribution. Mammals of South Asia 2(1): 159–175.
Shrestha, B.B. (2012). Communal pellet
deposition sites of Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus
chrysogaster) and associated vegetation
composition. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.
Shrestha, B.B. & X. Meng (2014). Spring habitat preference, association and threats of Himalayan Musk
Deer (Moschus leucogaster)
in Gaurishankar Conservation Area, Nepal. International
Journal of Conservation Science 5: 535–546.
Singh, P.B., B.B. Shrestha, A. Thapa, P. Saud & Z. Jiang (2018a). Selection of latrine sites by Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus
leucogaster) in Neshyang
Valley, Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Journal of Applied Animal
Research 46: 920–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1430578
Singh, P.B, P. Saud, D. Cram, K. Mainali, A.
Thapa, N.B. Chhetri, L.P. Poudyal, H.S. Baral & Z. Jiang (2018b). Ecological correlates of Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus
leucogaster. Ecology and Evolution 9:
4–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4435
Singh, P.B., J.R. Khatiwada, P. Saud & Z.
Jiang (2019). mtDNA analysis confirms the endangered Kashmir Musk Deer extends its range to
Nepal. Scientific Reports 9: 4895. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41167-4
Smith, R.L. (1980). Ecology and Field
Biology. Harper Collins, New York, 311pp.
Srivastava, T. & A. Kumar (2018). Seasonal habitat use in three species of wild ungulates in Sikkim
Himalaya. Mammalian Biology 88(1): 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2017.11.013
Thapa, A., Y. Hu & F. Wei (2018). The endangered red panda (Ailurus fulgens): Ecology and conservation approaches across
the entire range. Biological Conservation 220: 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.02.014
Thapa, M.T., S. Bhandari, K. Ghimire & D.R. Bhusal
(2019). Threats to endangered Musk Deer (Moschus chrysogaster)
in the Khaptad National Park, Nepal. Folia Oecologica 46: 170–173. https://doi.org/10.2478/foecol-2019-0020
Timmins, J. & J.W. Duckworth (2015). Moschus leucogaster.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015; e.T13901A61977764. Downloaded on 09 June 2021. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T13901A61977764.en