Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2023 | 15(1): 22371–22380
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7597.15.1.22371-22380
#7597 | Received 29 July 2021 | Final received
20 August 2022 | Finally accepted 01 November 2022
Status
distribution and factors affecting the habitat selection by Sambar Deer Rusa unicolor in Pench
Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India
Abdul Haleem 1 & Orus
Ilyas 2
1,2 Department of
Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
202002, India
1 haleemptr2012@gmail.com,
2 orus16@gmail.com (corresponding author)
Editor: David Mallon,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. Date of publication: 26 January 2023 (online &
print)
Citation: Haleem, A. & O.
Ilyas (2023). Status distribution and factors affecting the habitat
selection by Sambar Deer Rusa unicolor in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 15(1): 22371–22380. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7597.15.1.22371-22380
Copyright: © Haleem & Ilyas
2023. 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: Science and
Engineering Research Board (SERB).
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr. Abdul Haleem completed
his PhD in 2016 from Dept. of Wildlife Sciences, AMU Aligarh. For his doctoral
research he worked for SERB-Govt of India funded project titled “Conservation status and ecology of ungulates in Pench Tiger Reserve Madhya Pradesh India with special reference to resources partitioning”. Currently he is working as Senior
Ecologist/ Biodiversity Specialist in Green Field Environmental Consultancy Al-Khobar
Saudi Arabia. Dr. Orus Ilyas is working as Associate Professor in Dept. of Wildlife Sciences, AMU, Aligarh. She worked
is various research project as the
Principal Investigator funded
by CAPART, UGC, DST, SERB AND CSIR-Govt. of India. The funding for the current
study was provided by SERB-Govt of India
(Ref-SR/SO/AS-53/2011 DATED 4 July 2012). Apart from teaching she is working on Ken -Betwa River interlinking and biodiversity conservation in Panna Tiger Reserve.
Author contributions: The project
was funded to OI as she was the principal
investigator of the project and
AH worked as researcher under
the project.
Acknowledgements: The study was funded
by DST-SERB- Govt of India. The authors thank the Chairman, Department of
Wildlife Sciences, AMU, Aligarh for providing all necessary facilities. Thanks
are also due to PCCF- Chief WLW and all the forest staff of Madhya Pradesh for
permitting to work in Pench Tiger Reserve. Authors
sincerely thank Dr. Asad R.
Rahmani, former director BNHS, for his valuable
comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Special thanks to Shaheer Khan from WII-Dehradun, Dr.
Ekwal Imam and Farah Akram,
Dept of Wildlife sciences.
Abstract: Sambar Rusa unicolor is one of the deer species
distributed throughout the Indian subcontinent. The species has been listed as
‘Vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List since 2008, and Schedule I Part A of the
Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Populations have declined throughout its
distribution range. This study aims to investigate the status, distribution,
and habitat selection of Sambar in Pench Tiger
Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Fifteen line transects of 2-km length were laid
in five different habitats. Data were collected during the winter and summer
seasons during 2013 and 2015. Transects were traversed morning and evening and
eight replicates were made on each transect, for a total of 1,232 km survey
effort. The overall density of Sambar was 3.7 individuals per km2,
and the group density 1.4 groups per km2. During the summer 113
individual Sambar were observed, and in winter only 80 individuals were
observed. Male:female sex ratio was calculated as
100:59 in winter, and 100:56 in summer. Indirect evidence was also collected to
supplement the direct sightings for analysis of habitat use. Ten-meter circular
plots were laid on all 15 transects at an interval of 200 m between two plots.
Principal component analysis and logistic regression were performed to
understand the habitat use of this species during summer, post-monsoon, and
winter seasons using pellet groups. The logistic regression model showed an
efficiency of 97% correct classification during post-monsoon, 67% in winter,
and 66% in summer.
Keywords: Habitat utilisation, population density, principal component
analysis, logistic regression.
INTRODUCTION
Sambar Rusa unicolor is native to India, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Philippines, southern China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Borneo, Sumatra, and
Java (Wilson & Mittermeier 2011). In India the distribution range extends
east along the southern Himalaya and south throughout the Deccan peninsula.
Sambar are abundant in the southern states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala
(Sridhar et al. 2008; Timmins 2015). In other central and east Indian states,
Sambar is considered very rare, and the distribution is patchy and declining due
to severe hunting pressure, insurgency, and habitat destruction (Timmins 2015).
Sambar have disappeared from Sikkim and Tripura (Khan & Johnsingh
2015).
Ungulates play an
important role in maintaining the ecosystem by influencing vegetation structure
(Augustine & McNaughton 1998; Bagchi &
Ritchie 2010). They also play a major role in maintaining prey-predator
relations. Sambar is known to be a preferred prey of tiger, throughout its
range (Karanth & Sunquist
1992; Karanth & Nichols 2000; Ramesh et al. 2009).
Tiger Estimation Report (2019) reported 2,967 tigers in India among which a maximum of 526 tigers are present in Madhya
Pradesh (Jhala et al. 2018). Such population of
tigers needs a good prey base and population estimation is key for managing the
population of prey species. The Sambar
and Chital Axis axis together form the bulk of
the prey base for all large carnivores of the Indian subcontinent such as the
Tiger, the Asiatic Lion, the Leopard, and the Dhole (Devidar
1974; Johnsingh 1983; Bhatnagar 1991; Venkataraman
1995). Sambar contributes the most to the prey biomass and is considered a
keystone species in Pench Tiger Reserve (Venkataraman
1995).
Information on
specific habitat requirements is important for conservation, and governing
species habitat use including aspect, slope, food availability, vegetation
cover, food availability, vegetation cover, terrain, and cover against extremes
of weather and other biotic pressures. Conservation of species requires a good
understanding of the habitat requirements and careful monitoring of populations
(Yocozetal 2001; Acharya 2007). Understanding
population trends and habitat use is crucial for implementation of conservation
actions.
The study aims to
evaluate the density and population structure of Sambar and the factors
affecting its distribution in different seasons within Pench
Tiger Reserve (PTR), Madhya Pradesh, India. This study will update knowledge on
the abundance and habitat use of Sambar in PTR. The present study will be
useful for the managers and policymakers for conservation of the species and
its habiatat throughout its distribution range.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study Area
The Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India is one of the
important protected areas of the Satpura-Maikal
ranges of the central Indian Landscape. The area was declared as the 19th
tiger reserve of India in 1992. PTR comprises a sanctuary and national park,
covering an area of 757.85 km2 (21.62000 latitude and
79.21250 longitude) at an altitude of 425–600 m (Figure 1). The
terrain is gently undulating comprising seasonally flowing streams and nullahs.
The Pench River, from which this tiger reserve is
named, runs through the reserve over a length of 24 km bisecting it into two
halves.
The tiger reserve has
four seasons: Summer (March–June), Monsoon (July–August), Post-monsoon
(September–November), and Winter (December–February). The temperature ranges
from 40 C in peak winter to 450 C in the peak summer. The PTR receives an
average annual rainfall of 1,300 mm. The PTR is a dry deciduous forest
dominated by Tectona grandis,
Boswellia serrata,
Anogeissus latifolia,
Sterculia urens,
and Gardenia latifolia. Tiger Panthera tigris,
Leopard Panthera pardus,
Dhole Cuon alpinus,
Jungle Cat Felis chaus,
Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica, Striped Hyena Hyaena hyaena,
Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus,
Golden Jackal Canis aureus, and Common
Palm Civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus
are the carnivore species of the reserve. Herbivores, apart from Sambar,
include Chital, Gaur Bos gaurus, Nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus,
Barking Deer Muntiacus muntjac, and Chowsingha Tetraceros quadricornis.
Methods
Distance sampling was
used to study the population density of Sambar in PTR. A total of 15 line
transects of 2-km length were traversed morning and evening. The study area was
divided into five different habitats on the basis of vegetation composition, and
the transects were set to cover all the five habitats and three transects were
laid in each one, i.e., Bamboo forest, Grassland, Mixed forest, Teak forest,
and Teak mixed forest.
Two seasons were
selected to reduce the bias in data collection: Summer and Winter. Eight monitorings were made on each transect in summer and
winter, 0600–0900 h and 1600–1800 h. The direct sightings of Sambar were
recorded. During the field survey a
total of 1,232km efforts were given while traversing the transects.
To assess the habitat
utilization pattern, indirect data were also collected. Ten-meter radius
circular plots were laid on all of the 15 transects at an interval of 200 m
from one another. The tree species present were counted within each plot.
Five-meter circultar plots were laid to assess shrub
cover and 1-m quadrats for grasses and herbs. Pellet groups are another
indicator of the presence of a species
in a given habitat. For assessing the habitat utilization pattern of Sambar,
along with the vegetation data, data on Sambar pellet groups were also
collected.
On each sampling
plot, canopy cover was measured at four different points, using a mirror of 25
x 25 cm divided into 100 equal grid squares. The mirror was held horizontally
at 1.25 m above ground level, and grid squares covered by more than 50% tree
foliage were counted. Percentage canopy cover for each sampling plot was
calculated from these counts. Shrub cover, grass cover and herb cover was also
measured for each plot in different seasons through ocular estimation.
Data analysis
Line transect data
collected were analyzed using DISTANCE 7.0. The
distribution of the data was firstly examined by assigning very small cut-off
points to the distance intervals during the curve fitting. After choosing
convenient cut-off points for the distance intervals, the best key function
(with the appropriate adjustment term, where necessary) was selected using the
criterion of lowest AIC (Akaike information criteria).
Age classification of
Sambar followed Schaller (1967), Sankar (1994), and Sankar et al. (2001). Data on group size and composition
were analyzed following Schaller (1967) and Johnsingh (1983). Mean group size was estimated by taking
the average of different group sightings, and group size was classified into
different class intervals for better explanation between different seasons.
Analysis of indirect
evidence such as pellet groups was organized in a simple habitat matrix in
order to investigate the habitat selection at macro level. The pallet group
density was calculated using following formula:
Density / ha =
(Number of pallet groups / Area) × 10000.
Species diversity and
richness were calculated by using modified version of “SPECDIVER BAS” (Ludwing & Reynolds 1988), a module of software
STASTICAL ECOLOGY written in BASIC.
One-way ANOVA was
used to test significant differences in mean pellet group density in different
habitats in different seasons using the computer program SPSS 6.1 (Norusis 1994).
To understand the
habitat selection at micro level, principal component analysis (PCA) was
performed to avoid confounding highly correlated variables. All the
quantitative data in the matrix were transformed using log and arcsine
transformation and transformed data were standardized by calculating the mean
and standard deviation of each column of data matrix.
Factor analysis was
used to reduce the dimensionality of different habitat variables. The first two
factors were used for interpretation as these explained maximum variations in
the data set. Before using PCA most of the auto-correlated variables were
dropped. As habitat selection analysis concentrated on 30 variables around
different sampling plots in different season, were recorded out of which
different variables in different seasons were used for PCA, and factor scores
were saved. Utilized and available plots were plotted in two dimension space
defined by PCI, and PCII. All the extracted factors with eigen values of more
than one were saved and used for logistic regression analysis. In logistic
regression, the principal component was then used as candidate variables in
logistic regression model with forward step-wise entry.
RESULTS
Population density
and abundance of Sambar
During the winter
season, a total of 80 sightings were observed, while in summer 113
sightings were observed (sightings for both years were pooled). The long
distance sightings were trancuated to reduce the bias. A total number of
detection of Sambar was 80 in winter, and 113 in summer were used to estimate
density. Half-normal cosine model was selected for both winter and summer
season as best fit estimator. The effective strip width for winter season was
(23.7 ± 3.45) m whereas for summer season it was (18.7 ± 2.34) m. The estimated
density of Sambar was 6.93 (± 1.69) km-2 in winter 2014, 4.27 (±
1.05) km -2 in winter 2015 and 3.36 (± 0.71) km-2 for
overall winter season. Summer density was 10.2 (± 2.58) km-2 in
2013, 15.7 (± 4.88) km-2 in 2014, 8.53 (± 2.48) km-2 in
2015 and 4.06 (± 0.74) km-2 for summer overall (Table 1). Group
density of Sambar in different seasons are also shown in Table 1.
Mean pellet group
density of Sambar during post monsoon, summer and winter season were maximum
(100.8±101, 89.8±88, 98.2±94), respectively, in Teak forest, teak mixed forest,
& bamboo forest and minimum (30.78±37.85, 50.24±62.78, 53.07±65.20) in teak
mixed, grassland, & teak mixed forest, respectively. Analysis of two way
ANOVA shows significance differences in mean pellet group density in different
habitat in different seasons [F8 1043 = 3.706, ƞ2 (166748.3), P <0.05]. Post
hoc test shows that mean pellet group density of Sambar in grassland and teak
forest were found significantly different with each other. It also shows that
mean pellet group density of Sambar shows significant differences between post
monsoon season and winter season. The group density ± SE was highest in Teak
forest (1.22 ± 0.24) followed by Mixed forest, (0.54 ± 0.14), Grassland (0.50 ±
0.12), Teak mixed (0.33 ± 0.07), and Bamboo forest (0.27 ± 0.06) (Table 5).
Age and sex structure
of Sambar
Adult males (AM) and
adult females (AF) were observed more (31% and 53%, respectively) in winter
than in summer (27% and 48%, respectively). Observations of yearlings (Y) were
(15%) in summer and (10%) in winter. The sex ratio wasfound
biased towards females. In winter, out of 165 individuals, the AF:AM sex ratio
was 100:59, and AF:Y 100:18. In summer out of 341 individuals, the AF:AM ratio
was 100:56 and AF:Y 100:32. The mean group size ± SE of Sambar, during winter
was 2.08 (±0.11) and in summer 3.15 (±0.18).
Factors affecting the
selection of habitats by Sambar in different seasons
For Sambar during
post monsoon season, there were 15 variables that had correlation coefficient
above 0.80 therefore, these variables were removed from the analysis for
avoiding multicollinearity (Table 2). The first two principal components
accounted for 26.52% of the variation on data set. The first principle
component (PC 1) was highly positively correlated with herb diversity (r =
0.84), herb density (r = 0.79), and tree diversity (r = 0.70). The second PC 2
was highly positively correlated with grass diversity (r = 0.88) and grass
density (r = 0.86). Figure 2 indicates a relationship between the use of PC 1
and PC 2 in the selection of habitat by Sambar during the post-monsoon. Our
analyses showed a clear shift in habitat use in response to the increased use
of low to medium grass diversity and grass density and medium to high herb
diversity, herb density, and tree diversity. Overall, the logistic regression model
had an efficiency of 97.40% correct classification of cases that identified
tree density, as a key predictor of Sambar habitat use in the post-monsoon season. During summer, 11 out of 30 variables
were selected from data collected from 519 sampling plots (Table 3). The first
two principal components accounted for 41.31% of the variation. The first
principle component (PC 1) was highly positively correlated with grass density
(r = 0.83), herb density (r = 0.74), weathered stone (r = 0.54) and negatively
correlated with litter (r = -0.82). The second principle component (PC 2) was
highly positively correlated with herb cover (%) (r = 0.76) and and negatively correlated with rocks (r = -0.61). During summer the distribution of available
and utilized plots in relation to first and second component is shown in Figure
3. The graph shows that during summer Sambar preferred the area with low to
high herb cover % and and medium to high grass
density, herb density and weathered stone and on the other hand avoiding rock
and litter. The logistic regression model had an efficiency of 66.28% correct
classification of available and used plots by Sambar during summer. According
to this model, herb diversity was the most important predictor for Sambar’s
habitat selection.
During winter, 12
variables from 350 sampling plots of 30 variables were selected (Table 4). The
first two principal components accounted for 33.32% of the variation. The first
principle component (PC 1) was positively correlated with herb density (r =
0.67), herb cover (r = 0.65), herb diversity (r = 0.62), & grass density (r
= 0.61) and negatively correlated with rocks (r = -0.53). The second principle
component (PC 2) was highly positively correlated with seedling density (r =
0.89), seedling diversity (r = 0.87). For Sambar during winter season the
distribution of available and utilized plots in relation to first and second
component is shown in Figure 4. The graph shows that during winter season
Sambar preferred the area with low to medium seedling density and seedling
diversity and medium herb density, herb cover, herb diversity, grass density
and avoiding rocks. The logistic regression model had an efficiency of 66.57%
correct classification of available and used plots by Sambar during winter season.
According to this model, sapling density was the most important predictor for
Sambar’s habitat selection.
DISCUSSION
Sambar density is
showing a declining trend inthe last two decades in
PTR. During 1995–2000 Sambar density was reported to be 9.6 animals/km2 (Karanth & Nichols 2000). Sambar favours
dense forest patches as well as hilly terrain (Biswas & Sankar
2002; Kushwaha et al. 2004) and a similar trend was observed in the present
study. Our results show that Sambar prefers the teak dominated habitat with
hilly terrain and dense forest during winter and summer, and feeding results
also confirm the same as Sambar utilizes Tectona
grandis less than the availability in both
seasons (Ilyas 2015). Most of the sightings were around water holes. Studies
conducted in different parts of India suggest the Sambar tend to concentrate
their activity around these waterholes (Ilyas 2001; Biswas & Sankar 2002; Kushwaha et al. 2004). Being a deer that
prefers relatively dense forest, distribution pattern of Sambar was found to be
clumped type with highest pellet group recorded in Teak forest. Studies on a
variety of other ungulates have also shown clumped type distribution patterns
due to the availability of food resources (Adhikari & Khadka 2009). The
Chital density in PTR was reported to be 31.48 (± 3.47) in winter and 39.99 (±
2.73 during summer), 8–9 times higher than Sambar density (Ilyas 2015). The increased
population of chital may also be one of the reasons for the clumped
distribution of Sambar, to avoid competition. The overabundant population of
Spotted Deer in PTR is a major concern for the management point of view, and
translocation of chital to unoccupied areas outside PTR could resolve the issue
to some extent for Sambar (Ilyas 2015).
Schaller (1967) and
Eisenberg & Lockhart (1972) reported that Sambar does not remain in
permanent social groups. In PTR, the observed Sambar male:female
ratio was 0.59:1 in winter and 0.56:1 in summer. The observed low male ratio
might be due to selective predation by tiger on male Sambar as reported in
other studies (Schaller 1967; Johnsingh 1983; Karanth & Sunquist 1992).
Sambar male:female sex ratio of the present study can
be compared with Gir—0.5:1 (Khan et al 1996), Wilpattu—1.2:1 (Eisenbrg &
Lockhart 1972), Ranthambore—0.83:1 (Bagchi et al. 2003), and Florida—0.73:1 (Flynn et al.
1990). In Sambar, group size is generally small, numbering fewer than six
individuals (Schaller 1967). The characteristic social unit in Sambar is one
hind and one fawn or one hind, one yearling, and one fawn (Schaller 1967; Downes 1982). In the present study group size of 1–5
individuals was recorded throughout the year, as was also reported in Mudumalai (Ramesh 2010).
Habitat studies
provide crucial information about the ecological requirements of a species or
community. Habitats of animals have been studied for long. From the days of
Aristotle (344 BCE) where man learnt about habitat use by animals due to innate
curiosity to today’s times when understanding ecological relationships (Morisson et al. 1992), conservation of natural resources
(e.g. Soule 1986), and management of areas with specific requirements (e.g. Fox
et al. 1988; Rahmani 1989) have made it
mandatory to understand habitat requirements of different species. Increasing
habitat loss causes a significant increase in extinction risk among many
species, especially habitat specialists (Rahmani
1989; Birdlife International 2001; Mallon 2003; Norris & Harper 2003).
While it is important to assess the habitat usage, it is equally important to
conduct studies addressing the pattern of usage. It is assumed that high
quality resources will be selected more than low quality ones and use may
change with availability when the latter is not uniform (Manly et al. 1993).
Unoccupied habitat
with little selection cannot be assumed to provide low fitness potential.
Although effects of habitat cover, landscape structure and spatial variables on
abundance of birds has been reported (Heikkinen et. al. 2004), fitness
potential of habitat cannot be assumed to vary with habitat selection and a
gradient in observed density does not necessarily indicate a gradient in
habitat quality (Hobbs & Hanley 1990). The approaches used in the present
study for collecting data on habitat use reduced chances of collecting
insufficient or biased data. Ungulates defecate at a particular rate, which
varies between species, but is usually constant within species (Marques et al.
2001; Laing et al. 2003). Using pellets as indirect evidence of presence have
their understandable strengths, but also have some challenges. Although the
issue of detectability is reduced to a great extent when areas were combed
thoroughly for faecal matter, disintegration rate and
site selection pose concerns (Marques et al. 2001; Laing et al. 2003).
In the present study
most of the pellet groups of Sambar were recorded from hilly terrain with Teak
dominated forest type. The study shows that Sambar avoid dense forest which is
also supported by Imam (2014). This, however, is contrary to the studies
conducted by Ramesh et al. (2012) and Khushwaha et
al. (2014). Findings of factorial analysis state that density and diversity of
trees and herbs were the most important factors for their habitat preference
which is significantly supported by logistic regression analysis. These
findings are similar to the study conducted by Khushwaha
et al. (2004). Water is an important resource, particularly in hot temperatures.
Sambar, being an animal of hilly terrain, reduce energy expenditure by
restricting their home ranges around the water resources in summer. In certain
occasions they rush into a water body to avoid predation (Yahya 2014), often
unsuccessfully. Our study also shows a similar trend. It is also supported by
studies conducted by Johnsingh (1983), Eisenberg
& Lockhart (1972), and Imam (2014). The study area consists tropical dry
and tropical moist deciduous forests, so that covering of the ground with leaf
litter is common during summer. Sambar avoids habitats covered with high amount
of litter as they contain very few plant materials to be utilized as food. In
the present study similar results were recorded, where Sambar avoids litters in
summer. The rocks do not provide any protection from predators, high
temperature and forage. This has resulted in a decrease of suitable habitat for
this habitat specialist species. The woodland contains climax stage species
with interspersion of shrubs was the most preferred habitat type and favourable for its grazing and browsing requirement
throughout the year.
Ungulates in general
and Sambar in specific are a good indicator of the health of the forest. Their
population structure should be assessed at temporal and spatial levels at
different landscapes. The Pench Tiger Reserve is one
of the best managed tiger reserve and contains a very good prey base for the
thriving tiger population. For effective Sambar conservation a large undulating
tract of undisturbed habitat is required. Such tracts should have protection
from poaching as poachers prefer Sambar as it provides more meat. At the global
level Sambar population has declined and in peninsular Malaysia Sambar has lost
more than 50% of its historical range. (Kawanishi et al. 2014). In India also Sambar has
disappeared from Sikkim, Tripura and many other places, which is an alarming
condition for the managers (Khan & Johnsingh
2015). The government as well as NGOs involved in conservation should pay
special attention to Sambar conservation. Sambar is not only ecologically
important for the ecosystem but is also a main prey for tigers. We also
recommend IUCN Red List authorities to review the Red List category of Sambar,
presently listed as ‘Vulnerable’ (Timmins et al. 2015). If Sambar continue to
disappear from other areas, then soon it may be included in the Endangered
category.
Table 1. Sambar Densities (Individuals/km2) in Pench Tiger
Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, during
winter and summer seasons (2013 to 2015).
|
Years/Seasons |
Winter |
Summer |
||||||
|
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
Pooled |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
Pooled |
|
|
Total effort (km) |
NA |
272 |
240 |
512 |
240 |
240 |
240 |
720 |
|
TotalObservations |
NA |
48 |
32 |
80 |
27 |
41 |
45 |
113 |
|
Truncated at (m) |
50 |
45 |
||||||
|
Observation after
Truncation |
NA |
48 |
32 |
78 |
27 |
41 |
40 |
104 |
|
Density±SE/km² |
NA |
6.93 ± 1.69 |
4.27 ± 1.05 |
3.36 ± 0.71 |
10.21 ± 2.58 |
15.73 ± 4.88 |
8.53 ± 2.48 |
4.06 ± 0.74 |
|
Group Density ± SE/
km² |
NA |
2.46 ± 0.57 |
2.17 ± 0.51 |
1.60 ± 0.32 |
2.17 ± 0.48 |
3.43 ± 0.97 |
2.99 ± 0.82 |
1.28 ± 0.22 |
|
Mean Group Size ±
SE |
2.08 ± 0.11 |
3.15 ± 0.18 |
||||||
|
Effective Strip
Width± SE (m) |
23.66 ± 3.45 |
18.67 ± 2.34 |
||||||
|
A value |
201.68 |
213.34 |
||||||
|
Model+ Adjustment
term |
Half-normal Cosine |
Half-normal Cosine |
||||||
Table 2. Principal component analysis of Sambar
pellet group during post-monsoon season.
|
Variables |
PC I |
PC II |
PC III |
|
Bear Ground |
0.0331 |
0.107829 |
0.105539 |
|
Grass Density |
0.027686 |
0.868578 |
-0.136 |
|
Grass Diversity |
0.136071 |
0.883648 |
-0.06249 |
|
Herb Cover |
-0.03474 |
0.262041 |
0.084252 |
|
Herb Density |
0.799433 |
-0.12273 |
0.133806 |
|
Herb Diversity |
0.840358 |
0.278337 |
0.011688 |
|
Sapling Density |
0.248571 |
0.018811 |
0.109222 |
|
Sapling Diversity |
0.005983 |
0.06579 |
-0.0031 |
|
Shrub Cover |
-0.36659 |
-0.01112 |
0.660385 |
|
Seedling Density |
0.095794 |
-0.0226 |
0.079414 |
|
Seedling Diversity |
0.101087 |
0.134554 |
0.063229 |
|
Shrub Diversity |
0.12455 |
-0.04253 |
0.77041 |
|
Shrub Density |
0.186455 |
-0.15938 |
0.777779 |
|
Tree Density |
-0.02252 |
0.295619 |
0.346735 |
|
Tree Diversity |
0.701757 |
0.086988 |
-0.04878 |
|
% of Variance by
each component |
14.17153 |
12.35785 |
12.25404 |
|
Cumulative Variance |
14.17153 |
26.52938 |
38.78343 |
Table 3. Principal component analysis of Sambar
pellet group during the summer season.
|
Variables |
PC I |
PC II |
PC III |
|
Grass Density |
0.83167 |
0.275057 |
0.010902 |
|
Herb Cover |
0.207257 |
0.698108 |
0.041515 |
|
Herb % |
0.317452 |
0.768572 |
0.048339 |
|
Herb Density |
0.747446 |
0.401299 |
0.053116 |
|
Herb Diversity |
0.25406 |
0.449724 |
0.400123 |
|
Litter |
-0.82924 |
-0.04759 |
0.018185 |
|
Rock |
0.25652 |
-0.61443 |
0.028021 |
|
Seedling Density |
-0.00611 |
-0.04101 |
0.892497 |
|
Seedling Diversity |
-0.0352 |
0.089607 |
0.872159 |
|
Tree Cover |
-0.0003 |
-0.05004 |
-0.09414 |
|
Weathered Stone |
0.542355 |
-0.35789 |
-0.03183 |
|
% of Variance by
each component |
22.79538 |
18.51902 |
15.77547 |
|
Cumulative Variance |
22.79538 |
41.31441 |
57.08987 |
Table 4. Principal component analysis of Sambar
pellet group during the winter season.
|
Variables |
PC I |
PC II |
PC III |
|
Grass Density |
0.617863 |
-0.04698 |
-0.27626 |
|
Grass Diversity |
0.525874 |
0.300114 |
-0.19871 |
|
Herb Cover |
0.651132 |
-0.01108 |
0.147166 |
|
Herb Density |
0.674319 |
0.013231 |
0.116658 |
|
Herb Diversity |
0.62023 |
0.166813 |
0.171585 |
|
Rock |
-0.53704 |
0.072539 |
0.282335 |
|
Sapling Density |
0.090378 |
0.061656 |
-0.08938 |
|
Seedling Density |
-0.01843 |
0.890214 |
0.110038 |
|
Seedling Diversity |
0.090306 |
0.878828 |
0.016763 |
|
Shrub Diversity |
0.054001 |
-0.10344 |
0.854835 |
|
Shrub Density |
0.005772 |
0.232585 |
0.779192 |
|
Tree Cover |
-0.08705 |
-0.05413 |
0.171437 |
|
% of Variance by
each component |
18.64389 |
14.68341 |
13.73232 |
|
Cumulative Variance |
18.64389 |
33.3273 |
47.05962 |
Table 5. Seasonal variation in density of Sambar
in different habitats of Pench Tiger reserve, Madhya Pradesh (2013 to 2015).
|
Habitat |
Sambar (Density±SD) |
||
|
Post monsoon |
Summer |
Winter |
|
|
Bamboo Forest (n=
180) |
45.64±51.34 |
69.70± 83.63 |
98.19 ±94.59 |
|
Grassland |
41.40 ±45.15 |
50.24 ±62.78 |
61.04± 78.29 |
|
Mixed (n=180 in PNP
& n=144 in PMS) |
64.85 ±66.56 |
65.89 ±69.94 |
82.51 ±82.67 |
|
Teak Forest (n=180) |
100.84± 101.77 |
72.54± 65.28 |
80.67 ±78.55 |
|
Teak-mixed (n=180) |
30.78 ±37.85 |
89.87 ±88.36 |
53.07 ±65.20 |
PNP—Pench national Park | PMS—Pench
Mowgli Sanctuary.
For figures - - click
here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Acharya, B.B. (2007).The ecology of the
dhole or Asiatic wild dog (Cuonalpinus) in Pench tiger reserve, Madhya Pradesh. PhD Thesis, Saurashtra
University, Rajkot, Gujarat, 132 pp.
Adhikari S. & A. Khadka (2009). Study on relative
abundance and distribution of Tiger prey base (ungulates) in kanha corridor, Bardia national
park Kathmandu University Journal of Science Engineering and Technology
5:121–135.
Augustine, D.J. & S.J. McNaughton (1998). Ungulate effects on
the functional species composition of plant communities: herbivore selectivity
and plant tolerance. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 1165–1183.
Bagchi S., S.P. Goyal &
K. Sankar (2008). Habitat separation
among ungulates in dry tropical forest of Ranthambhore
national park, Rajasthan.Tropical Ecology 44
(2): 175–181.
Bagchi S., S.P. Goyal &
K. Sankar (2003). Prey abundance and
prey selection by Tigers (Panthera tigris) in a semi-arid, dry-deciduous forest in western
India. Journal of Zoology 260: 285–290.
Bagchi S. & M. Ritchie
(2010). Herbivore effects on above- and belowground plant production and soil
nitrogen availability in the trans-Himalayas shrub-steppes. Oecologia
164: 1075–1080.
Bhatnagar, Y. (1991). Habitat preference
of Sambar (Cervus unicolor) in Rajaji
National Park. MSc Dissertation, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, 51 pp.
Birdlife International (2001). Threatened Birds
of Asia: The Birdlife International Red Data Book. Cambridge, UK, 32 pp.
Biswas, S. & K. Sankar
(2002). Prey abundance and food habit of tigers (Pantheratigristigris)
in Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal
of Zoology 256: 411.
Buckland, S.T., D.R. Aanderson,
K.P. Burnham & J.L. Laake (1993). Distance sampling:
estimating abundance of biological population. Chapman and Hall,
New York, 446 pp.
Carbone, C. & J.L. Gittleman
(2002). A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295:
2273–2276.
Davidar, E.R.C. (1974). Observation at the
dens of the dhole or Indian wild dog (Cuonalpinus). Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 71: 183–187.
Dinerstein, E. (1979). An ecological survey
of the Royal KarnaliBardia Wildlife Reserve, Nepal.
Part II. Habitat/animal interaction Biological Conservation 16: 265–300.
Downes, M. (1983). The Forest Deer
Project (1982). Australian Deer Foundation Ltd.Melbourne,
Australia, xx + 190 pp.
Eisenberg, J.F. & M. Lockhart (1972). An ecological
reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon. Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology 101: 1–118.
Flynn, L.B., S.M. Shea,
& J.C. Lewis (1990). MarchintonRL.Population,
status, health, and habitat use, pp. 63–96. In: Ecology of Sambar deer on
St. Vincent NationalWildlife Refuge, Florida. Bull
No. 25 Tall timber research station, Tallahassee, Florida, 107 pp.
Fox, J.L., S.P. Sinha, R. Chundawat
& P.K. Das (1988). A field survey of snow leopard presence and
habitat use in northwestern India, pp. 99–111. In:
Freeman, H. (ed.). Proceedings of the Fifth International Snow Leopard
Symposium. International Snow Leopard Trust, Bellevue, Washington and
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
Heikkinen, R.K., M. Luoto,
R. Virkkala & K. Rainio
(2004). Effects of habitat cover, landscape structure and spatial variables on
the abundance of birds in an agriculturalforestmosaic.
Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 824–835.
Hobbs, N.T. & T.A. Hanley (1990). Habitat evaluation:
do use/availability data reflect carrying capacity? Journal of Wildlife
Management 54: 515–522.
Ilyas, O.
(2015). Conservation status and ecology of ungulates in
Pench Tiger Reserve M.P. with special reference to
resource partitioning.Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh, SERB-DST Funded Final Technical Report. 2015. (Unpublished Report)
Imam, E. (2014). Habitat suitability
model for Sambar (Rusa unicolor): A
remote sensing and GIS approach Proceeding of National Seminar on Remote
sensing and Enviornment. Jadhavpur
Universtity, Kolkata.
Imam, E., S.P.S
Kushwaha & A. Singh (2009). Evalutation of
suitable tiger habitat in Chandoli National Park
India using Multiple logistic regression, Ecologogical
Modelling 220: 3621–3629.
Jhala, Y.V., Q. Qureshi
& A.K. Nayak (2019). Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in
India 2018. Summary Report. National Tiger Conservation Authority,
Government of India, New Delhi, and
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. TR No./2019/05.
Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1983). Large mammalian
prey-predators in Bandipur.Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 80(1): 1–57.
Karanth, K.U. & J.D.
Nichols (2000). Ecological status and conservation of tigers in
India. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India, 124 pp..
Karanth, K.U. & M.E. Sunquist (1992). Population structure, density and biomass of large
herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarhole,
India Journal of Tropical Ecology 8: 21–35.
Kawanishi, K., D.M. Rayan,
M.T. Gulmul & C.R. Shepherd (2014). Extinction process
of the sambar in Peninsular Malaysia. DSG Newsletter 26: 48–59.
Khan, J.A., R. Chellum
& A.J.T. Johnsingh (1996). Group size and
age-sex composition of three major ungulate species in Gir
Lion Sanctuary, Gujarat, India Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
92: 295–302.
Khan, J.A.
& A.J.T. Johnsingh (2015). Sambar, pp. 223–241.
In: Johnsingh, A.J.T. & N. Manjerekar
(eds.). Mammals of South Asia, Vol 2. University Press (India) Private
Ltd., 739 pp.
Kushwaha S.P.S., A. Khan, B. Habib, A. Quadri
& A. Singh (2004). Evaluation of Sambar and muntjac habitats using
geostatistical modelling Current Science 86(10): 390–1400.
Kushwaha, S.P.S., S. Nandy
& M. Gupta (2014). Growing stock and woody biomass assessment in Asola-Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary, Delhi, India. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 186(9): 5911–5920.
Laake, J.L., S.T.
Buckland, D.R. Anderson & K.P. Burnham (1993). DISTANCE User’s
Guide, Version 2.0. Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Laing, S.E., S.T. Buckland., R.W. Burn, D. Lambie & A. Amphlett
(2003). Dung and nest surveys:
estimating decay rates. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 1102–1111.
Mallon, D.P. (2003). Tetracerus
quadricornis In: IUCN (2006). Red List of
Threatened
Species.<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 28 November 2006.
Manly, B.F., L.L. McDonald & D.L. Thomas
(1993). Resource Selection by Animals: Statistical Design and Analysis for
Field Studies.Chapman and Hall, London,
221 pp.
Marques, T.A., L. Thomas,
S.W. Martin, D.K. Mellinger, J.A. Ward, J. David, D.J. Moretti, D.
Harris & P.L. Tyack (2013). Estimating animal
population density using passive acoustics. Biol. Rev. Camb.
Philos Soc. 88(2): 287–309.
Marques, F.F.C., S.T. Buckland, D. Goffin, C.E. Dixon, D.L. Borchers, B.A. Mayle
& A.J. Peace (2001). Estimating deer abundance from line transect
surveys of dung: sika deer in southern Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology
38: 349–363
McFarland, D. (1981). The Oxford
Companion to Animal Behaviour. Oxford University
Press, UK, 672 pp.
Morrison, M.L., B.G. Marcot, & R.W. Mannan (1992). Wildlife-Habitat relationships:concepts and applications. The University
of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 343 pp.
Norris, K. & N. Harper (2003). Extinction processes
in hot spots of avian biodiversity and the targeting of the pre-emptive
conservation action Proceedings of the Royal Society London 271:
123–130.
Odum, H.T. (1996). Environmental
Accounting. Energy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, 384 pp.
Rahmani, A.R. (1989). The Great Indian
Bustard: Final Report. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India, 234 pp.
Ramesh, T., K. Sankar,
V. Snehalatha & Q. Qureshi (2009).Food habits and prey
selection of tiger and leopard in Mudumalai Tiger
Reserve, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Scientific Transactions in
Environment and Technovation 2(3): 170–181.
Ramesh, T. (2010). Prey Selection and
Food habits of large carnivores (Tiger,Leopard and
Dhole) in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Western Ghat, India. PhD Thesis, Saurastra
University, Gujarat, India, 178 pp. https://doi.org/10.20894/STET.116.002.003.010
Ramesh, T., K. Sankar,
Q. Qureshi & R. Kalle (2012). Group size, sex and
age composition of Chital (Axis axis) and Sambar (Rusa
unicolor) in a deciduous habitat of Western Ghats. Mammalian Biology
77: 53–59.
Sankar K, Q. Qureshi, M.K.
Pasha & G. Areendran (2000). Ecology of Gaur (Bos
gaurus) in Pench Tiger
Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 27 pp.
Schaller, G.B. (1967). The Deer and the Tiger.The
University of Chicago Press, 384 pp.
Shukla, R. (1990). An ecological study
of interactions between wild animals and vegetation in Pench
Sanctuary and environs. PhD Thesis. Dept. of Botany, Harisingh
Gaur Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, India.
Soule, M.E. (1986). Conservation
Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, 584
pp.
Sridhar, M., N. Sridhar & M. Chandrashekhar
(2008). Bacterial biomass as feed for rearing of Panaeusindicusm
(H. Milne Edwards) larvae. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition 5: 25–30.
Timmins, R.K., B. Kawanishi,
A. Giman, B. Lynam, R.
Chan, R. Steinmetz, Sagar, H. Baral
& K.N. Samba (2015). Rusa
unicolor. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:e.T41790A85628124. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2
Venkataraman, A., B.R. Arumugam & R. Sukumar
(1995). The foraging ecology of Dhole (Cuonalpinus)
in Mudumalai Sanctuary, southern India. Journal of
Zoology 237: 543–561.
Wilson, D.E. (2011). Mittermeier RA Handbook
of Mammals of the World - Vol 2. Hoofed Mammals. Lynx Editions, Barcelona,
886 pp.
Yahya, H.S.A. (2014). Observations on
killings of Sambar (Rusa unicolor) by
wild dog in Periyar Tiger Reserve Kerela
India DSG Newsletter 26: 31–36.
Zar, J.H. (1984). Bio statistical
analysis. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, 818 pp.