Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2021 | 13(7): 18695–18702
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7177.13.7.18695-18702
#7177 | Received 09 February 2021 | Final
received 18 March 2021 | Finally accepted 16 June 2021
Assessment of changes over a
decade in the patterns of livestock depredation by the Himalayan Brown Bear in Ladakh, India
Aishwarya Maheshwari 1 ,
A. Arun Kumar 2
& Sambandam Sathyakumar
3
1 Department of Wildlife Sciences,
College of Forestry, Banda University of Agriculture and Technology, Banda,
Uttar Pradesh 210001, India.
2,3 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India.
1 aishwaryamaheshwari@gmail.com (corresponding
author), 2 arunkumar.gis@gmail.com, 3 ssk@wii.gov.in
Editor: L.A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha, India. Date of publication: 26 June
2021 (online & print)
Citation: Maheshwari, A., A.A. Kumar & S. Sathyakumar (2021). Assessment of changes over a decade in the patterns of
livestock depredation by the Himalayan Brown Bear in Ladakh,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(7): 18695–18702. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7177.13.7.18695-18702
Copyright: © Maheshwari 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: Wildlife Institute of India and the International Association for Bear Research and Management for providing funding support to SSK for the study (2001–2003) and Rufford Foundation for providing funding support to AM for the study (2009–12).
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Aishwarya Maheshwari focuses on
biodiversity research and conservation with particular interest in the
sustainable development and
community-based biodiversity conservation in the Himalaya. Sambandam Sathyakumar
is interested in the ecology and conservation of the wildlife of the Himalaya,
where he has been following research interests in mountain ungulates, bears,
other large carnivores and Galliformes. A. Arun Kumar
is an engineer and focuses on remote sensing technology in the wildlife
research.
Author contributions:
Initially SSK conceived the idea in early 2000s and carried our the fieldwork during 2001 to 2003. Later, AM followed
the similar habitats and carried out the fieldwork and analysed
the data during 2009 to 2012. AM, AAK and SSK wrote, reviewed and approved the
article.
Acknowledgements: We thank the Wildlife Institute
of India and the International Association for Bear Research and Management for
providing funding support to SSK for the study (2001–2003) and Rufford Foundation for providing funding support to AM for
the study (2009–12); Jagdish, Ringchen Angdus, T. Sangay, Kazim for
their assistance during the field surveys; the Department of Wildlife
Protection, Jammu & Kashmir for providing permission for the study;
acknowledge the cooperation of the people of Kargil, Suru and Zanskar during the field and questionnaire
surveys; and thanks are due to Lalit and Mukesh for
their valuable comments on the draft manuscript.
Abstract: Conflicts between large
carnivores and shepherds constitute a major socio-ecological concern across the
Himalaya and affects community attitudes and tolerance toward carnivores. We
assessed the extent and intensity of Human-Brown Bear interactions in the same
villages of Zanskar and Suru Valleys, Ladakh, in the Indian Trans-Himalaya during two time
periods (2001–2003 and 2009–2012) through field and questionnaire surveys.
During 2001–2003, 180 families of 32 villages in Zanskar, and 232 families of
49 villages in Suru were interviewed, and during
2009–2012, 145 families of 23 villages in Zanskar and 115 families of 33
villages in Suru were interviewed. Overall, 475
(119/year) and 454 (151/year) heads of livestock were reportedly killed by
Brown Bears. The surveys of 2009–2012 revealed that livestock predation in
‘doksas’ (summer grazing camps) was higher (68 %) compared to the surveys
carried out during 2001–2003 (42 %). The increased livestock depredation in
doksas might be due to the extended stay and use of pastures by the local
communities during spring and autumn. Damage to property in the form of
breaking open of doors and windows by Brown Bear were reported during both the
surveys. Economic losses and declining tolerance of people may trigger
retaliatory killings of Brown Bear in Ladakh. We
recommend compensation for livestock loss and improved husbandry practices in
the conflict zones for bear-human coexistence.
Keywords: Conflict, Himalayan Brown Bear,
Human-Brown Bear interactions, field and questionnaire surveys, Ladakh, livestock depredation, Suru,
Trans-Himalaya, Zanskar.
INTRODUCTION
Worldwide, the Brown Bear Ursus arctos is the
most widely distributed species among the eight species of bears (Servheen 1990; Schwartz et al. 2003; Nawaz 2007). They are
distributed in most of the northern hemisphere, including the Palearctic and
Nearctic regions of the world (Servheen 1990). They
inhabit alpine and sub-alpine mountainous landscapes of Asia, Europe, and North
America. Their numbers and distribution range have contracted by more than 50%
in Asia during the past century (Servheen 1990). The
Himalayan Brown Bear U. a. isabellinus (Image
1), a subspecies that represents an ancient lineage of the Brown Bear
(Galbreath et al. 2007), has a restricted distribution in the Greater and
Trans-Himalayan regions of Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh,
Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand in India (Sathyakumar
2001, 2006). The Himalayan Brown Bear occurs in subalpine forests and alpine
meadows in the Greater Himalaya of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and
Uttarakhand, and in the cold-arid alpine scrub and meadows in the
trans-Himalayan regions of Ladakh (Sathyakumar 2003, 2006). Sathyakumar
(2001, 2006) reported, through questionnaire-based surveys, Brown Bears are
present in 23 protected areas and 35 other localities throughout the northwestern and western Himalayan regions of India.
In the Himalayan landscapes,
local communities generate their livelihoods largely through nomadic
pastoralism, horticulture, subsistence farming, and eco-tourism activities (Jaypal 2000; Maheshwari et al. 2010; Maheshwari 2018;
Maheshwari & Sathyakumar 2019, 2020); however,
due to increase in livestock densities and consequent expansion of pastoralism
into new areas that were historically natural and undisturbed habitats,
domestic species (e.g., cattle such as cow, yak Bos grunniens,
dzo-dzomo (yak-cow hybrids), sheep Ovis aries, goat Capra
aegagrus and equids) are more vulnerable to
predation by Himalayan Brown Bear, which may lead to retaliatory killing by
local communities (Karimov et al. 2018; Maheshwari
2018; Dai et al. 2020). In India, Brown Bears are threatened due to poaching
for bear parts and retaliatory killings to reduce livestock depredation (Sathyakumar 2001, 2006) and has significantly contributed
to the local declines of the populations of Brown Bear and other large
carnivores such as Snow Leopard Panthera uncia and Wolf Canis
lupus in the Himalayan region (Jackson et al. 2001; Spearing 2002;
Maheshwari et al. 2010; Can et al. 2014; Maheshwari 2016; Maheshwari 2018;
Maheshwari & Sathyakumar 2019, 2020; Dai et al.
2020). Sound scientific research is necessary for making management decisions
related to Brown Bears and for sustainable management of their populations (Servheen 1990; Sharief et al.
2020); however, there has not yet been detailed field research on the Himalayan
Brown Bears in Ladakh.
We conducted field and
questionnaire surveys in Zanskar and Suru valleys of Ladakh, India, during two time periods, viz., 2001–2003 and
2009–2012 to understand the patterns of Human-Brown Bear interactions in order
to plan effective conservation and management actions for Brown Bears and their
co-existence with local communities.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
Study Area
The Zanskar and Suru valleys of Kargil District
in the Union Territory of Ladakh (Figure 1) falls
within the Trans-Himalayan biotic province (1B) of India (Rodgers et al. 2000).
Topographically, the region is mountainous with vast valleys characterised by open
and dry steppe vegetation indicating arid conditions. Major vegetation
formations include open or desert steppe dominated by grasses, sedges, and
dwarf shrubs such as Ephedra gerardiana, Capparis spinosa, Salsola collina, Stipa klimesii, Leymus nutans, Eurotia ceratoides,
Artemisia macrocephala, Hippophae
rhamnoides, Myricaria elegans, and Caragana species (Kala 2011;
Maheshwari 2016). Large mammals that co-exist with Brown Bears in the Kargil Himalaya include the Snow Leopard, Wolf, and Ibex Capra
ibex. The elevation in the study area ranges 3,400–7,510 m with significant
land surface under permafrost coverage (Maheshwari 2016). The climate in the
study area is largely dry with extreme cold conditions throughout the region
(Maheshwari 2016).
The Suru
Valley forms a major portion (4,500 km2) of Kargil
District (Figure 1) and it is characterised by steep and rocky mountains, wide
valleys with human habitations and agriculture/horticulture lands. Rivers Suru and Drass drain the valley
which join the Indus flowing in the north (Maheshwari 2016). The Zanskar Valley
(3,000 km2) is the region located south of Pensi
La (4,400 m) and it is characterised by large valleys with human habitations
and agriculture/horticulture lands and surrounded by mountains. Zanskar River
drains the valley and joins the Indus at Nimmo (Maheshwari 2016). The Zanskar
Valley is bordered by the Great Himalayan high mountains to the south and west.
Traditionally, the local communities are involved in subsistence agriculture
and agro-pastoral based lifestyle, they cultivate the
land along the course of the drainage system, wherever artificial irrigation
from mountain streams is possible. Kargil is one of
the sparsely populated regions in India and settlement pattern is just along
the river valleys and a few broad valleys (Maheshwari 2016). The human
population in the study area is dominated by Buddhists (in Zanskar Valley) and
Muslims (in Suru Valley) with human density of 8
persons/km² for Kargil District (Census of India
2011).
Methods
Characterization of human-bear
interaction: (a) semi-structured interviews.
We carried out field and
questionnaire surveys for 75 days during the summer months of 2001 (40 days),
2002 (20 days) and 2003 (15 days) in Zanskar and Suru
valleys to assess the extent and intensity of Brown Bear-Human interactions.
The surveyed localities include most of the villages along the main Kargil-Padum motor road and in the side valleys of Sanku, Umba, Rangdum,
and Padum that are representative of the Zanskar and Suru valleys. We repeated these surveys in the same
villages (as it was conducted during 2001–2003) during the summer months of
2009–2012 (90 field days). Informal semi-structured interviews (Sathyakumar 2001; Maheshwari et al. 2014; Dai et al. 2020)
were used to collect information on livestock holdings and livestock
depredations from the villagers.
We interviewed a minimum of five
families in a village and if livestock depredations due to Brown Bear were
reported by even one of these five families, then we sampled at least 30% of
the total families living in that village (Sathyakumar
2003). Villagers living in doksa (seasonal nomadic settlement used by agro-pastoral communities to shelter their livestock during
summer in the Greater and Trans-Himalaya of India; Maheshwari 2013) were also
interviewed. To reduce and avoid overestimation of livestock depredation, we
employed participatory rural appraisal (PRA), a standardised approach for
collecting data on large carnivore-human interaction using the semi-structured
interview technique of PRA (Maheshwari et al. 2014). We conducted informal
meetings in public places (e.g., community centres) and personal visits to the
villages, to explain study objectives to local communities. Meetings were open
to all. We recorded people’s complaints about wildlife damage, especially
damage by Brown Bears. Following these meetings, a semi-structured
questionnaire format was developed in line with preliminary interviews.
Interviews were then carried out in all the villages, doksa and seasonal
settlements that were known to experience frequent conflict incidents. Our
sampling involved face-to-face interviews with villagers and reflected
first-hand experience and knowledge. Moreover, through personal interaction, we
believe it was generally possible to judge the authenticity of the claims or
cross check them, thus improving overall reliability (Maheshwari et al. 2014).
Characterization of human-bear
interactions: (b) field survey.
To understand the spatial
distribution of livestock predation by Brown Bear, the GPS locations of the
predation cases were recorded during the surveys and a kernel-density
transformation were adopted to understand predation density across the study
area. It provides a median to visualize point pattern to detect hotspots
(O’Sullivan & Unwin 2003). Kernel-density estimation provides a map of
estimates of local intensity of any spatial process from a set of observed
occurrences (Bailey & Gatrell 1995). A
development gradient representing the conflict intensities through varying
densities of conflict was created (Worton 1989) using
kernel-density tool in ArcGIS 10.5 (ESRI 2016). The method begins by centring a
bivariate probability density function with unit volume (i.e., the ‘kernel’)
over livestock predation locations. A regular grid is then superimposed on the
data and a probability density estimate was calculated at each grid
intersection by summing the overlapping volumes of the kernels. A bivariate
kernel probability density estimator (i.e., a ‘utilization distribution’) was
then calculated over the entire grid using the probability density estimates at
each grid intersection (Kernohan et al. 2001). The
resulting kernel probability density estimator would have relatively large
values in areas with many observations and low values in areas with few. We
calculated the distribution using the fixed kernel estimator with least squares
cross validation (LSCV) as the smoothing parameter, with a sample size ≥30.
This search radius (bandwidth) is computed specifically to the input dataset
using a spatial variant of Silverman’s rule of thumb that is robust to spatial
outliers (Silverman 1986).
Results
Interviews distribution
In total, 412 respondents from 81
villages were interviewed during the 2001–2003 survey. It comprised 180
respondents from 32 villages of Zanskar, and 232 respondents from 49 villages
of Suru. Additionally, in Zanskar, 16 villagers
living in eight doksas were also interviewed. Whereas, during second time
survey (2009-–2012), 145 respondents representing 23 villages of Zanskar and
115 respondents from 33 villages of Suru Valley were
interviewed and a total of 20 villagers in doksas were also interviewed
in Zanskar Valley.
Livestock holding
The overall livestock population
had increased by about 9% (from 2001 to 2010; Table 1) which was mostly due to
increase in the numbers of cattle (18%), sheep and goats (10%), and the decline
in the numbers of equids (7%). Further, shepherds reported a marginal shift in
the increased use of high-altitude pastures (at doksa) during spring and autumn
as compared to the 2001–2003 surveys.
Livestock predation by Brown Bear
Data from 2001 to 2003: The
average livestock predation by brown bear was of 3.15 (29.05±1.65) animals per
household (i.e., on average 151 livestock/annum were reportedly killed by brown
bear for those sampled families). Majority of the incidences took place in the
villages (n= 257; 54 %) followed by doksa (n= 200; 42 %) and livestock night
shelters (n= 19; 4 %) (Table 2). Brown Bears preyed mainly on young ones of
cow, yak and dzo-dzomo (age= <1 year; n= 248; 52
%) and goat and sheep (n= 195; 41 %). Most of the depredations were reported
during summer (n= 195; 63 %) and to some extent in spring (n= 87; 28 %). Locals
reported visual encounters of Brown Bears on livestock kills (n= 153; 37 %) or
have confirmed it based on tracks and signs (n= 259; 63 %) found near kills and
their predation behaviour.
Data from 2009 to 2012: The
average livestock predation was of 4.56 (44.34±2.65) animals per household
(i.e., 119 livestock/annum were reportedly killed by brown bear for the sampled
families). Majority of the incidences took place in doksas (n= 309; 68 %)
followed by villages (n= 145; 32 %; Table 2). Brown Bears preyed mainly on
sheep and goats (n= 245; 54 %) followed by young ones of cow, yak and dzo-dzomo (age= <1 year; n= 209; 46 %). Most of the
depredations were reported during summer (n= 185; 66 %) and spring (n= 95; 34
%). Locals reported more frequent Brown Bear visual encounters on livestock
kills in Zanskar Valley (n= 177; 68 %) than Suru
Valley (n= 83; 32 %).
Spatial patterns in Brown
Bear-Human conflicts:
Data from 2001 to 2003: In
Zanskar, two conflict zones were identified (i.e., Shagar-Tangar-Ranthakshah
areas (STR) and Chibra-Hamling-Achoo-Abran areas (CHA); Figure 1a). The Brown Bear was reported
to have preyed upon 6.3 % (total livestock population 3,301 in sampled
families) and 7.9 % (total livestock population 3,386 in sampled families) of
the livestock population of CHA and STR, respectively (Table 2).
Data from 2009 to 2012: We
recorded two-conflict zones viz., one in Suru (Bartoo-Ichoo-Rangdum; BIR) and another one in Zanskar (Shagar-Tangar-Ranthakshah; STR) (Figure 2b). The Brown
Bears were reported to have preyed upon 5 % (total livestock population 3,450
in sampled villages) and 7.3 % (total livestock population 3,840 in sampled
villages) of the livestock population of BIR and STR, respectively (Table 2).
Trend in Brown Bear-Human
interactions
A kernel distribution of the
events determined three interaction zones, viz., BIR, in Suru
and CHA and STR in Zanskar Valleys in both the time periods (Figure 2c). During
the period 2009 to 2012, the total livestock loss due to Brown Bears (including
both valleys) was of 6.5 % (n= 7,290), of which Zanskar and Suru
reported 6.9 % (n= 3,840) and 6.1 % (n= 3,450) livestock loss, respectively.
Similarly, in 2001 to 2003, the total livestock loss due to Brown Bears
(including both valleys), was of 6.8 % (n= 6,687), of this, Zanskar and Suru reported 6 % (n= 3,310) and 7.5 % (n= 3,386) of their
livestock loss respectively.
Discussion
Local communities were primarily
concerned for the livestock depredation and damage to their properties by the
Brown Bear in Zanskar and Suru valleys. Both led to
economic losses in the local communities, and possibly therefore, retaliatory
killing cannot be ruled out. Spearing (2002) reported that three Brown Bears
were killed in Zanskar in retaliation during 1998–2001; however, we did not register
any such case during the study duration. Retributory killing of Brown Bear have
been reported from the neighbouring state of Himachal Pradesh, India in which
the migratory shepherds (gaddis) often kill Brown Bears to reduce livestock
predation (Sathyakumar 2001; Rathore & Chauhan
2007; Sharief et al. 2020). Rathore (2008) reported
that livestock depredation by Brown Bear ranged from 2.2 % to 12.9 %
livestock/annum in Kugti Wildlife Sanctuary, Himachal
Pradesh, India. There had not been any cases of attacks on humans by Brown Bear
in Himachal Pradesh (Rathore 2008); however, during the 2001–03 survey,
first-hand accounts of Brown Bear attack on humans (in 2001) was recorded from
a villager in Abran Village (Zanskar Valley; Sathyakumar 2003). In Sanjiangyuan
of the Tibetan Plateau, the Tibetan Brown Bears Ursus
arctos pruinosus were
estimated to damage properties more significantly than livestock depredation
(Dai et al. 2020). Whereas, in our findings there is a comparatively more loss
(almost 132 heads of livestock annually) of livestock in Kargil.
This disparity is explained by the poor guarding practices and unsupervised
livestock grazing in the Indian Himalaya region (Rawat 2007; Maheshwari 2016).
We observed that most people around Zanskar kept dogs to guard the livestock
but efficiency of such measures was limited, which are widely used probably
lead to habituation to brown bear (Sathyakumar 2001; Ambarlı & Bilgin 2008;
Rathore 2008; Can et al. 2014; Maheshwari 2018).
Pattern of Brown Bear-Human
interaction
We estimated a decline of 37 %
(n= 152; from 2001–2003 to 2009–2012) in the number of respondents who reported
cases of Brown Bear-Human interaction. Although there was an 18 % increase in
the total number of livestock holdings by the respondents, the livestock loss
to Brown Bear remained almost the same. The present study also made an attempt
to understand the presence of Brown Bear with livestock predation caused by it
in the conflict zones. During 2009–12, we recorded 88 evidences of Brown Bear
with 6 % livestock loss in BIR and 31 evidences of Brown Bear with 9 % livestock
loss in STR of the total livestock population in both the conflict zones. This
high number of Brown Bear evidences and low levels of conflict may be due to
improved livestock husbandry practices in BIR. Government owned livestock
(sheep and goats) were not depredated by any wild carnivore as 5–6 staff
members of the Sheep Husbandry Department guarded the animals efficiently.
Moreover, damage frequency seems to have increased in the summer pastures due
to unsupervised grazing of the livestock, which in turn was caused by many
residents either moving to big cities for better jobs or opportunities in the
eco-tourism sector in Zanskar range.
Conclusion
and Perspectives
Livestock is one of the major
sources of livelihood for the agro-pastoral
communities in Kargil and Zanskar (Maheshwari 2016;
Maheshwari & Sathyakumar 2020). Due to a lack of
proper infrastructure and poor guarding practices, livestock is more exposed to
Brown Bear depredation in Kargil and Zanskar. In
addition, unsupervised grazing of cattle and horses in hill slopes or nullas (streams in narrow valleys) and sheep and goat
grazing by children are two of the key contributing factors for Brown Bear
depredation in Kargil and Zanksar
Himalaya. We propose adoption of adult supervised livestock grazing at the
village level and improved predator proof livestock corrals and night shelters
for reducing Brown Bear depredations (Maheshwari & Sathyakumar
2020). Since the Brown Bear population is declining throughout most of its
range in southern Asia, and their population is still small, the species have
poor growth potential, and a relatively low genetic diversity (Nawaz 2007). It
requires a continuous field and genetic monitoring. Maintaining and improving
the connectivity with adjacent populations in Pakistan and India will be of
utmost importance for its long-term survival. We also recommend payment
of compassionate grants for livestock loss and improved husbandry practices in
the interaction zones for bear-human coexistence.
Table 1. Livestock holdings in the
Brown Bear habitats surveyed in Zanskar and Suru
valleys during 2001 and 2010.
Number of families and their
livestock details |
2001 |
2010 |
|||
Zanskar |
Suru |
Zanskar |
Suru |
||
No. of families surveyed |
180 |
232 |
145 |
115 |
|
Cattle (cow, yak, dzo-dzomo) |
1379 |
989 |
1651 |
1154 |
|
Sheep and goats |
1489 |
1249 |
1628 |
1389 |
|
Equids (horses /mules/donkeys) |
834 |
747 |
849 |
619 |
|
Table 2. Comparison of livestock
predation by brown bear at various sites in Ladakh
during two time periods, 2001 to 2003 and 2009 to 2012. Key: BIR- Bartoo-Ichoo-Rangdum, STR- Shagar-Tangar-Ranthakshah,
CHA- Chibra-Hamling-Achoo-Abran.
Livestock predation across
sites |
2001 to 2003 |
2009 to 2012 |
Doksas |
200 |
309 |
Villages |
257 |
145 |
Night shelter |
19 |
- |
Livestock predation conflict
hotspots |
||
BIR |
- |
173 |
STR |
208 |
281 |
CHA |
267 |
- |
For
figures & image - - click here
REFERENCES
Ambarlı, H. & C.C. Bilgin (2008). Human–Brown Bear
Conflicts in Artvin, Northeastern
Turkey: Encounters, Damage, and Attitudes. Ursus
19: 146–153.
Bailey, T.C., & A.C. Gatrell (1995). Interactive Spatial Data
Analysis. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex, UK, 413pp.
Can, O.E., N. D’Cruze,
D.L. Garshelis, J. Beecham & D.W. Macdonald
(2014). Resolving
human-bear conflict: A global survey of countries, experts, and key factors. Conservation
Letters 7: 501–513.
Census of India (2011). Provisional population totals.
Paper 2, volume 1 of 2011. Rural-urban distribution India series 1. Office of
the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, New Delhi, India. Data product
00-004-2011-Cen-Book (E).
Dai, Y., C.E. Hacker, Y. Zhang,
Y. Li, J. Li, Y. Xue & D. Li (2020). Conflicts of
human with the Tibetan brown bear (Ursus arctos pruinosus) in the Sanjiangyuan region, China. Global Ecology and
Conservation 22: e01039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01039
ESRI (2016). ArcGIS Desktop. Release 10.5.
Redlands, CA. Environmental Systems Research Institute.
Galbreath, G.J., C.P. Groves
& L.P. Waits (2007). Genetic resolution of composition and phylogenetic placement of the Isabelline Bear. Ursus 18:
129–131.
Jackson, R., D. Hillard & R.
Wangchuk (2001). Encouraging
local participation in efforts to reduce livestock depredation by Snow Leopard
and wolf in Ladakh, India. Carnivore Damage
Prevention News 4: 2–6.
Jayapal, R. (2000). Livestock depredation by wild animals in Zanskar, Ladakh.
Report submitted to Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
Kala, C.P. (2011). Floral Diversity and
Distribution in the high-altitude cold desert of Ladakh,
India. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 30: 360–369.
Karimov, K., S.M. Kachel, & K. Hackländer (2018). Responses of snow leopards,
wolves and wild ungulates to livestock grazing in the Zorkul
Strictly Protected Area, Tajikistan. PLOS ONE 13: e0208329. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208329
Kernohan, B.J., R.A. Gitzen, & J.J. Millspaugh (2001). Analysis of animal space use
and movements. Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic Press, San
Diego, USA, 125–166pp.
Maheshwari, A, J. Takpa, S. Kujur, & T. Shawl
(2010). An
investigation of carnivore-human conflicts in Kargil
and Drass areas of Jammu and Kashmir. Report
submitted to Rufford Small Grant. 30 pp. Available: https://www.rufford.org/projects/aishwarya-maheshwari/an-investigation-of-carnivore-human-conflicts-in-kargil-and-drass-areas-of-jammu-and-kashmir/
Accessed 15 September 2019.
Maheshwari, A. (2013). Doksa: Summer home of domestic
livestock. Hornbill October–December, 20pp.
Maheshwari, A., N. Midha & A. Cherukupalli
(2014).
Participatory rural appraisal and compensation intervention: challenges and
protocols while managing large carnivore-human conflict. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 19: 62–71.
Maheshwari, A. (2016). Conservation and management of
Snow leopard and co- predators with special reference of large carnivore-human
conflicts in the select areas of western Himalayas. PhD Thesis. Saurashtra
University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India, 170pp.
Maheshwari, A. (2018). Foraging habits of the red fox Vulpes
vulpes (Mammalia: Carnivora: Canidae) in the
Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(10): 12418–12421. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3968.10.10.12418-12421
Maheshwari, A. & S. Sathyakumar
(2019). Snow leopard stewardship in mitigating human-wildlife conflict
in Hemis National Park, Ladakh,
India. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 24: 395–399.
Maheshwari, A. & S. Sathyakumar (2020). Patterns of livestock depredation
and large carnivore conservation implications in the Indian Trans-Himalaya.
Journal of Arid Environments 182: 104241.
Nawaz, M.A. (2007). Status of the brown bear in
Pakistan. Ursus 18: 89–100.
O’Sullivan, D. & D.J. Unwin
(2003). Geographic
Information Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA. 395pp.
Rawat, G.S. (2007). Pastoral
practices, wild mammals and conservation status of alpine meadows in western
Himalaya. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 104: 5–11.
Rathore, B.C. & N.P.S.
Chauhan (2007). Predatory
behavior and interaction of Himalayan brown bear with
nomadic shepherds in Pir-Panjal Himalayan range,
India. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Bear
Research and Management, Monterrey City, Mexico.
Rathore, B.C. (2008). Ecology of brown bear (Ursus arctos) with
special reference to assessment of human-brown bear conflicts in Kugti Wildlife Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh and mitigation
strategies. PhD Thesis. Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India, 239pp.
Rodgers, W.A., H.S. Panwar &
V.B. Mathur (2000). Wildlife Protected Area Network in India: A Review (Executive
Summary). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
Sathyakumar, S. (2001). Status and management of Asiatic black bear and Himalayan brown bear in
India. Ursus 12: 21–30.
Sathyakumar, S. (2003). Brown Bear-Human conflicts in Zanskar and Suru
Valleys, Ladakh. Report submitted to Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun, India, 22pp.
Sathyakumar, S. (2006). Status and distribution of Himalayan Brown Bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus) in India: An assessment of changes over
ten years. The Indian Forester 132: 89–96.
Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson,
K.A. Gunther & D. Moody (2003). Distribution of grizzly bears in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1990–2000. Ursus 13:
203–212.
Servheen, C. (1990). The status and management of the bears of the world. International
Conference on Bear Research and Management. Monograph Series 2: 32.
Sharief, A., , B.D. Joshi, V. Kumar, M. Kumar, R. Dutta, C.M. Sharma, A. Thapa,
H.S. Rana, T. Mukherjee, A. Singh, M. Thakur, L.K. Sharma & K. Chandra
(2020). Identifying
Himalayan Brown Bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus)
conservation areas in Lahaul Valley, Himachal
Pradesh. Global Ecology and Conservation 21: e0090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00900
Silverman, B.W. (1986). Density Estimation for
Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 176pp.
Worton, B.J. (1989). Kernel methods for estimating
the utilization distribution in home range studies. Ecology 70: 164–168.