Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2022 | 14(8): 21487–21500
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8030.14.8.21487-21500
#8030 | Received 27 May 2022 | Final received
30 July 2022 | Finally accepted 10 August 2022
Dietary preference of Assamese Macaque Macaca
assamensis McClelland, 1840 (Mammalia: Primates: Cercopithecidae) in Dampa Tiger
Reserve, India
Ht. Decemson 1, Sushanto
Gouda 2, Zothan Siama
3 & Hmar Tlawmte
Lalremsanga 4
1 Wildlife Ecology
& Conservation Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Mizoram
University, Mizoram 796004, India.
1,2,4 Developmental Biology
& Herpetology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Mizoram University,
Mizoram 796004, India.
3 Department of
Zoology, Mizoram University, Mizoram 796004, India.
1 decemsonht@gmail.com,
2 sushantogouda@gmail.com (corresponding author), 3 zothans@gmail.com,
4 htlrsa@yahoo.co.in
Editor: H.N. Kumara, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural
History, Coimbatore, India. Date
of publication: 26 August 2022 (online & print)
Citation: Decemson,
Ht., S. Gouda, Z. Siama & H.T. Lalremsanga (2022). Dietary preference of
Assamese Macaque Macaca assamensis
McClelland, 1840 (Mammalia: Primates: Cercopithecidae)
in Dampa Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 14(8): 21487–21500. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8030.14.8.21487-21500
Copyright: © Decemson et al. 2022. 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 work
was funded by the National Mission on Himalayan
Studies (NMHS), with the sanction letter no. GBPNI/NMHS-2017/MG-221/5561 and NERBPMC (North Eastern Region–Biotechnology Program
Management Cell), Department
of Biotechnology (DBT), Govt.
of India, DBT-NER/AAB/64/2017.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Ht. Decemson has completed his
MSc (zoology) from the Department of Zoology, Mizoram University and is
currently perusing his doctorate degree in the same department. He is working as a senior research fellow in
the DST/SERB-EEQ project and focuses
mainly on primates and amphibian diversity in Dampa
Tiger Reserve and Tamdil National Wetland. Dr Sushanto Gouda has completed his PhD in ecology and
conservation of Sun Bear. He is specialized in mammalian diversity, conflict
management and sustainable livelihood development. He is currently working on multiple projects involving
conservation of large carnivores and reptilian fauna of Mizoram. Dr Zothan Siama is working as an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Zoology, Mizoram University. He is specialized in primate ecology
and also focuses on cancer biology. Prof. H.T. Lalremsanga is designated as Professor and is also
the Head of the Department of Zoology, Mizoram University. He is currently
running four major projects under DBT, DST-SERB, DRDO and NMHS. He is also
supervising PhD scholars in the field of herpetology and developmental biology.
Author contributions: HD has led the field
work, did the observation, data analysis
and initiate the manuscript writing. SG
has compiled the manuscript, designed the framework and communicated the manuscript. ZS has
helped in analysis the data and provided with important inputs for the
development of the manuscript. HTL has supervised the field work, sample
collection, provided valuable inputs and made necessary correction to the
manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We expressed our
sincere gratitude to the principal chief conservator of forest and chief
wildlife warden, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of Mizoram for the permission (Memo No: A.33011/2/2012-CWLW/64) on
primate study in Mizoram. We acknowledge the National Mission for Himalayan
Studies (NMHS) (Grant No. GBPNI/NMHS-2017/MG-22/566), Uttarakhand for the
financial assistance. We also appreciate the forest staff of DTR for their help
and cooperation. We appreciated the researchers of the Developmental Biology
& Herpetology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Mizoram University,
Mizoram.
Abstract: Dietary composition
and selection of food items are important approaches for the flexibility and
adaptability of macaques in different natural habitats. With a wide
distribution range, Assamese Macaques feed on various food types. This study
reports the consumption of 57 plant species from 30 families. A total of 2,233
scans resulted in 16,381 feeding behavioral records
during the study period from 2018 to 2020. Macaques appear to be primarily folivorous in Dampa as leaves
(young & mature) constitute 44.74% of their daily dietary intake while the
fruit consumption was found to be 25.31% of the total dietary intake. Plant
species like Artocarpus lakoocha
(15.65%), Albizia procera
(12.03%), Glochidion hyneanum (10.53%), Diospyros glandulosa
(9.49%), and Albizia lebbeck (7.28%) contributed significantly to macaque’s
diet compare to other plants. No significant variation was observed on time
spent for feeding on leaves, fruits, flowers, and seeds in both different
months and seasons of the year. The highest percentage of the diurnal time
invested on feeding activity was (59.04%) in the month of January (winter
season), which may be due to the cold climate and scarcity of proper feeding
items and the least was (35.19%) in June where food resources are more readily available.
The richness of fruiting plants in Dampa Tiger
Reserve appears to fulfill the dietary requirement of
Assamese Macaque and therefore intactness of forest resources is necessary for
their development and conservation.
Keywords: Conservation, diet,
feeding behaviour, food selection, primate, richness.
INTRODUCTION
Diet or food
selection is an important trade in an animal’s life. Adaptation and alteration
in dietary patterns account for the major ecological and behavioral
differences among primate species especially in wild (Koirala et al. 2017;
Ghimire et al. 2021). Dietary preference provides useful information on
individual food species necessary for survival, insight into its level of dietary
specialization, resource partitioning and also on monitoring strategies for
threatened and elusive primates (Koirala & Chalise
2014; Koirala et al. 2017; Khatiwada et al. 2020).
Assamese Macaque Macaca assamensis
is one of the most widely distributed non-human primate species in southeastern Asia. They have a wide distribution range
across the region inhabiting different forms of forest habitat such as
evergreen broadleaf forests, deciduous broadleaf forests, mixed broadleaf, and
conifer forests (Boonratana et al. 2008; Timmins
& Duckworth 2013; Boonratana et al. 2020). It is
categorized as a ‘Near Threatened’ species by the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species and listed as an Appendix II species of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (Boonratana et
al. 2020; Ghimire et al. 2021) and also as Scheduled II species by the Indian
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Assamese Macaques
(AM) are known to invest more than two-fifths (>40%) of the diurnal time on
feeding (Ghimire et al. 2021) and are adaptable foragers able to modify their
diet seasonally, being more folivorous in the dry
season and more frugivorous in the wet season. Understanding the temporal
availability of food to a particular species is crucial when examining the drivers
of their feeding strategies (Bessa et al. 2015).
Macaques in the tropics tend to consume more fruit and fewer leaves than
temperate-living macaques (Hanya 2004; Tsuji et al.
2013; Hung et al. 2015; Li et al. 2019, 2020). Their natural feeding items in
the wild include fruits, leaves, seeds, flowers, buds, young shoots, twigs,
barks, roots, and resin of gymnosperms (Chalise 1999;
Koirala & Chalise 2014; Koirala et al. 2017; Boonratana et al. 2020; Khatiwada
et al. 2020; Ghimire et al. 2021). They may also feed on faunal resources such
as grasshoppers, earthworms and other mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, and spiders (Schulke et
al. 2011; Hambali et al. 2014; Nila
et al. 2014). Dietary selection among AM tend to be affected by factors like habitat
quality, available foraging options, food resources, digestive capabilities,
and the food nutrients it require (Chalise 1999;
Poulsen et al. 2001; Jaman & Huffman 2012;
Ghimire et al. 2021).
In recent years, the
landscapes of northeastern India have witnessed swift
alteration in the form of reduction of primary forest, shifting cultivation,
mono-plantations, forests fire, habitat fragmentation due to constructions,
threatening the primate diversity of the region (Choudhury 2001; Srivastava
2006; Choudhury 2011; Mazumder et al. 2014). Dampa Tiger Reserve (DTR), harbors
several species of primates that inhabit the forest very close to the buffer
areas and thereby have high chances of encroaching on the agricultural crop
fields that are adjacent to the core. Such encroachment may lead to
human-primate negative interactions due to crop loss suffered by local farmers.
Hence understanding the feeding ecology of this species and developing suitable
measures to mitigate them is necessary in the area. Till date, the macaque’s
response to such variations in the accessibility of food resources during
seasonal changes is not yet reported in this region. As there is a scarcity of
information on the feeding ecology and pattern of food selection, we intend to
provide new insight to the food habits and dietary preferences of AM in the
tropical forest of DTR in Mizoram, India, and possibly contribute for better
management and conservation of the species and its habitat in the region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study
area
The
study was conducted from September 2018 to August 2020 at DTR (23.38–23.70 N
& 92.27–92.43 E) located in the western part of Mizoram in Mamit district along the international border to
Bangladesh. The reserve comprises a core area of 500 km2 and a buffer
488 km2, covering mountainous terrains, and elevation ranging
250–1,100 (Figure 1) (Johnson et al. 2021). The natural vegetation is distinct
by the tropical evergreen to semi-evergreen of undulating, rugged in nature
consisting of alternating ridges, medium hills, and slopes of mostly bamboo
forest classified under the Cachar tropical evergreen
and semi-evergreen: 1B/C3 and 2B/C2 forest, tropical moist deciduous forests:
3C/C3b and 3C2S1, sub-montane type: 2B1b (Champion & Seth 1968). The moist
valley is lofty and evergreen, runs parallel along the rivers, steeper slopes
have more deciduous elements, often with sympodial bamboos in the understory (Vanlalsiammawii et al. 2020). Weather pattern is
characterized by a tropical humid climate with distinct cold
(November–February), summer (March–June), and rainy (May–October) seasons. The
temperature ranges from 4°C in winter (January) to 36°C in summer (May–June).
The average annual rainfall is 2,200 mm. Forest canopy at lower elevation is
30–35 m, with evergreen and some deciduous trees interspersed with tall (~40 m)
emergent trees such as Dipterocarpus turbinatus, Tetrameles nudiflora, Michelia champaca, and Arctocarpus
chaplasha, while from the elevation above 700 m,
the forest forms a canopy at 25–35 m characterized by trees such as Schima wallichii,
Castanopsis indica, and
Mesua ferrea (Mandal
& Raman 2016).
Other
primate species in the DTR are Rhesus Macaque M. mulatta,
Northern Pig-tailed Macaque M. leonina,
Stump-tailed Macaque M. arctoides, Capped Langur
Trachypithecus pileatus,
Phayre’s Leaf Monkey T. phayrei,
Western Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock hoolock, and
Bengal Slow Loris Nycticebus bengalensis (Pachuau et al.
2013).
Study
subjects
The
feeding ecology and dietary pattern of AM in DTR was determined by marking and
following a particular troop. We observed for their daily activities and
feeding plants from September 2018 to August 2020. The observation of AM in the
field was conducted continuously during the study period along the adjacent
buffer fringe. The time spent for monitoring AM was maximum, i.e., 10–12
h during dry seasons (winter and spring) and Minimal in monsoon (i.e., 6–7 h).
Constraints faced during the survey period include inaccessible terrains,
leeches, and bad weather conditions. Days lost to bad weather condition was
compensated by the addition of observation hours and days during the dry and
spring season. The individuals of the focal troop were identified with the help
of different external characters and appearances such as body structure, facial
features, fur color, cut marks, skin colour, and tail
carriage. The troop consisted of two adult males, three adult females, five
sub-adult females, three sub-adult males, two juveniles, and four infants that
were classified by sex and age based on coloration, body size, and development
of sexual characteristics following earlier established physical descriptions
(Ulibarri & Gartland 2021).
Habitat
and Vegetation sampling
Habitat
and vegetation types in the study sites were determined by a stratified
sampling method. We employed nine plots randomly in square subplots measured
(20 x 20) m2 in the Teirei range (23.68°
N, 92.4° E and 23.66 N, 92.41° E) within
an elevation range of 687–836 m. All sampling was made on foot on a transect
line that were previously marked. The observation was made using a binocular,
GPS, and digital camera. All the trees within the quadrats were identified to
the species level (Sawmliana 2013; Hegde & Manpoong 2017), counted and their diameter at breast height
was measured at approximately 1.37 m above the ground. The dominance of each
species within a plot was calculated as the relative density (RD) and relative
frequency (RF), following Irmayanti et al. (2022) and
ultimately determined the Important Value Index IVI value for each plant
species in a plot by summing the relative density (RD), relative basal area
(RBA), and relative frequency (RF) following Deori et
al. (2016).
Dietary
composition and feeding activity
Data
on the dietary composition and feeding behavior of AM
were collected by direct observations in the field following the methods of Chalise et al. (2013). The feeding data was collected for
24 months from September 2018 to August 2020. Observations were noted down
every 10 minutes per hour using direct observation of both adult male and
female individuals from the time they were encountered to until out of sight
via focal individual sampling, starting from 0600 h to 1700 h. Sampling was
carried out for 5–10 consecutive days of every month (Solanki et al. 2008)
until the focal individual under observation disappeared from view sight or
retired to sleeping site (Altmann 1974; Bartlett 1999). The focal individual
was randomly determined among adults prior to the observation and we focused
mainly on adult male and female individuals and made 6 to 12 entries per day on
information such as consumed food plants, food items, and feeding time based on
the season. The feeding items or plant parts consumed were categorized as
leaves (both young and mature leaves), flowers, fruits, seeds, and shoots. The
time spent feeding on different food items was calculated as per Gupta &
Kumar (1994):
Ta = Na X 100
–––––––
N
where,
Ta
= Percent time spent on feeding
activity
Na
= Number of records with feeding
activity, and
N
= Total number of records for the
day
Data
Analysis
Kruskal-Wallis
test was performed to determine the monthly and seasonal variation in time
devoted to each plant part and the number of plant species consumed. A ‘P’
Value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS version 16.0
software (SPSS Inc Chicago, Illinois, USA) and GraphPad Prism ver. 8.2 were
used for statistical and graphical analysis.
RESULTS
Habitat types and
vegetation
Vegetation in the
study sites was determined through vegetative sampling and collection of
ecological based data in various quadrats. The surveyed sites mainly consist of
tropical deciduous forests and bamboo forests with ≥70% canopy cover. Tree
species such as Acer laevigatum, Canarium bengalense, Trema orientalis, Schima wallichi,
Albizia chinensis,
Derris robusta, Albizia
rumphii, Ficus racemosa, and F. hirta of
basal width 40–80 cm were dominant in the surveyed sites. Bamboo species like Dendrocalamus asper, D. longispatus, Cephalotachyum
latifolium, Bambusa mizorameana, B. tulda,
and Melocalamus compactiflorus
were also prevalent in the region. AM was observed to forage on 57 plant
species belonging to 30 families (Table 1). Of the 57 feeding plants known to
be consumed by AM, the highest relative density was recorded for Melocana baccifera (3.78%),
followed by Dendrocalamus longispathus (3.36%), and Artocarpus
lakoocha (2.94%) (Table 2). The highest
relative frequency of the feeding plants was calculated for Melocana
baccifera (4.87%), Dendrocalamus
longispathus (4.38%), and Musa ornata (2.99%); while the least encountered plant
species were the Ficus spp., i.e.,
F. auriculata, F. elastica,
and F. racemosa with values of 0.49%, 0.73%,
and 0.73%, respectively. The important value index (IVI) was contributed most
by Ficus auriculata
(15.2), Bombax ceiba (13.3), & Albizia
procera (8.66) and the least was recorded for Dysoxylum gotadhora (2.80),
Gnetum gnemon
(2.81), & Protium serratum (2.96) (Table
2).
Dietary composition
and feeding activity
In the study, 203
days of the survey resulted in 2,233 scans and 16,381 behavioural records. AM
was observed to forage on 57 plant species from 30 families (Table 1). The
number of food plant species consumed in each observation month ranges from 20
to 43 (32.42 ± 6.56) (Table 3). While plant species namely A. lakoocha, C. graffithii
and all species of Albizia were fed throughout
the year; species like V. quinata, P. timoriana, and H. kurzii
were consumed in the least number (Table 3). Members of the family Moraceae (9), Meliaceae (5), Mimosaceae (4), and Euphorbiaceae
(4) contributed to the most number of feeding plants in AM’s diet, while the
other listed plant families represent two or one plant species at most (Figure
2). Among the feeding plant species, trees accounted for 91%, herbs for 7%, and
climbers/ vines for 2%. AM was found to munch on different plant parts such as fruits,
leaves (young & matured), flowers, shoots, and seeds. Leaves formed the
highest proportion of AM diet with 44.74% followed by fruits (25.31%), flowers
(15.66%) seeds (12.14%), and shoots (2.14%) (Figure 3). Among the feeding plant
species 13 species contributed for >1% feeding times. The major feeding
plants of AM were identified to be Artocarpus
lakoocha (15.65%), Albizia
procera (12.03%), G. hyneanum
(10.53%), D. glandulosa (9.49%), Albizia lebbeck (7.28%), Cephalotaxus graffithii
(4.53%), and F. auriculata (4.20%) as it
was observed to spend more time on this plants species. While plants
such as Walsura robusta
(0.31%), Phyllanthus emblica (0.30%),
Terminalia myriocarpa (0.21%), Vitex quinata (0.12%) were found to be consumed in the least
quantity (Table 1). Plants such as A. lakoocha,
Albizia procera,
Diospyros glandulosa, P. serratum,
Dendrocalamus longispathus,
and Duabanga grandiflora were
identified to contribute with most number of consumable parts. Soft or tender
shoots of D. longispathus and M. baccifera were the plants whose shoots were fed by AM.
Distribution of feeding plant species indicates that Melocana
baccifera (20), Dendrocalamus
longispathus (18), Caesalpinia
cucullata (16), Musa ornata
(14), and Walsura robusta
(13) were present in the highest number in the sampled quadrats although it
does not represent the feeding utility by AM in its diet.
Monthly and seasonal
effect on feeding phenology
In the present
observation, leaves (young and mature) and fruits constituted the major food
items of AM and they invested more time for feeding on these food items.
Leaves, both young and mature leaves formed the highest bulk of AM’s diet, as
they were available throughout the years and no significant variation was
observed on time spent on feeding leaves in different months of the year (X2
= 19.46, df =11, p >0.05) (Figure 4). Similarly,
there was no significant variation in the time spent on feeding of leaves in
different seasons (X2 = 3.429, df = 2, p
>0.05). Fruits were most abundant during monsoon/summer and constituted the
major food item during the month of June to August. They were observed to feed
maximum fruits in the month of August (44.62% of the total food items), and the
least consumption of fruits was recorded in the month of February (3.48% of the
total food items). Time spent on feeding of fruits did not show significant
variation in different months (X2 = 15.87, df
= 11, p >0.05) and seasons (X2 = 4.571, df
= 2, p >0.05). The highest consumption of flowers was observed in the month
of February (28.05%), however, no significant variation in the time spent on
feeding of flowers was observed monthly and seasonally (Table 4). Seeds were
found to be consumed mainly in winters when there was a scarcity of fleshy
fruits, and the highest seed consumption was recorded in January (12.4%).
Shoots of bamboo sp. were fed only in monsoon (June–October) and the total time
spent on feeding of shoots during the observation period was only 2.14%. Plant
species such as Cephalotaxus graffithii, Diospyros glandulosa,
A. lakoocha, Albizia
chinensis, and Bombax insigne were
observed to be eaten throughout the year and thus represent the primary sources
of nutrients for AM. The highest percentage (59.03%) of the diurnal time
invested on feeding was in the month of January and the least (35.19%) was in
the month of June (Table 4).
DISCUSSION
Primates have a
diverse feeding ecology and are highly adaptable in their dietary requirement.
Dietary flexibility has permitted primates to live in a variety of habitats
including tropical forests, semi-evergreen forests, montane forests, limestone
bamboo forests, and secondary degraded forests (Timmins & Duckworth 2013; Mazumder et al. 2014; Huang et al. 2015; Koirala et al.
2017; Boonaratana et al. 2020). Similar to other
findings across southeastern Asia, AM in DTR are also
primary folivorous as leaves (young & mature)
constitute 44.74% of their daily dietary intake compared to 25.32% of fruit
(Srivastava 1999; Chalise et al. 2013; Zhou et al.
2011; Huang et al. 2015; Ghimire et al. 2021). Young leaves, when available
were the major food items (spring and pre-monsoon). Contrastingly, mature leaves
were the preferred food items during winter. Although the availability of young
leaves decreased markedly from November to February, a high level of leaves was
maintained in the diet of AM almost year-round as reported by Srivastava (1999)
and Zhou et al. (2011). The scarcity of most young leaves during the dry winter
season was compensated by some of the major food plants that thrived throughout
the dry season in the study sites like Albizia
chinensis, A. lebbeck,
A. procera, A. lakoocha,
Bombax insigne, and Protium serratum
(Table 3). Apart from leaves, the amount of time invested among other food
items such as, fruits, flowers, and seeds were high. We suggest that they like
to avoid leaves (especially mature) and try to intake other more nutritive food
whenever possible. Similar to this observation, AM in central Nepal switched
between the young and mature leaves according to their availability, but the
higher preference been the young leaves (Ghimire et al. 2021). In the study, it
was observed that the abundance of plant species has no correlation with the
selection of feeding items. Plant species like Ficus
auriculata, Bombax ceiba, and Melocana baccifera although
were dominant and widely distributed, more preference was given to species like
Albizia sp., Ficus
sp., and Artocarpus lakoocha,
which are in accordance with reports of Zhou et al. (2011) and Ghimire et
al. (2021). AM are adaptable foragers able to modify their diet seasonally,
being more folivorous in the dry season and more
frugivorous in the wet season or post-monsoon (Li et al. 2019; Ghimire et al.
2021). Many studies have shown a strong correlation between rainfall and fruit
availability in the dry season from November to March (Zhou et al. 2006, 2011).
AM in DTR spent
majority (>44 % on average) of their diurnal time on feeding. They devoted
more time in search of food items during the winter months (November–February)
when resources were limited in cold and dry periods. Seasonal variation in the
diet of AM was clearly linked to seasonal fluctuation in food availability
which is a common observation across their home ranges. AM greatly
altered their diet with a mixture of plant items including fruits, flowers,
leaves, shoots and even seeds. While primate species such as Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock
hoolock, Stump-tailed Macaque Macaca
arctoides, and Rhesus Macaque Macaca
mulatta are frequently encountered in crop fields
(Mazumder et al. 2014), no such observation was made
in DTR region, although they are reports available of crop raiding by AM in
their home ranges (Regmi et al. 2013; Adhikari et al.
2018). The richness of fruiting plants in DTR appears to fulfill
the dietary requirement of AM as no incidences of human-primate negative
interactions are reported from the region and co-habitation was also observed
between AM and other primate species. However, with the increase in settlement
areas along the periphery of DTR, more dependency on forest resources,
construction of road networks, and clearing of forests for cultivation, such
conflict are inevitable in near future. Although in some cases, AM was found to
survive in disturbed habitats, but the long-term consequences on reproduction
and survival are unknown (Srivastava 2006). Hence understanding the feeding
ecology of AM and adapting timely measures will be important for preventing
human-AM negative interactions as well as conservation of primates in the
region.
CONCLUSION
The macaques, changed
their diets in accordance with the season and availability of food items as
they appear to be folivorous in the dry and
pre-monsoon season and more frugivorous in the monsoon and post-monsoon
seasons. They consumed a wide range of trees, herbs, shrubs, and climbers. It
is happening that the primates in northeastern India
have been forced into crop raiding because of the loss of their natural habitat
from various anthropogenic activities. However, it is evident that some species
have clearly learned to co-exist with humans by raiding crops. Conflicts of
this kind are likely to increase in the future as the human population
continues to grow exponentially in this region and encroachment on primate
habitats continues. With increasing trends of habitat destruction in all the
home ranges and reports of crop raiding, understanding keys factors and feeding
ecology of the species in the wild will be crucial for addressing proper
management and conservation of the species and their remaining habitat.
Table 1. Plants recorded that are consumed by Assamese Macaque Macaca assamensis in
the study site.
|
|
Species name |
Family |
Vernacular |
Habit |
Parts eaten by |
Time spent for
feeding (%) |
|
1 |
Artocarpus lakoocha |
Moraceae |
Theitat |
T |
L, Fl, Fr, Sd |
15.65 |
|
2 |
Albizia procera |
Mimosaceae |
Kangteknu |
T |
L, Fr, Fl, Sd |
12.03 |
|
3 |
Glochidion hyneanum |
Euphorbiaceae |
Thingpawnchhia |
T |
Fl, L, Fr |
10.53 |
|
4 |
Diospyros glandulosa |
Ebenaceaea |
Theivawkmit |
T |
L, Fr, Fl, Sd |
9.49 |
|
5 |
Albizia lebbeck |
Mimosaceae |
Kangtek |
T |
L, Fl, Fr, Sd |
7.28 |
|
6 |
Cephalotaxus graffithii |
Cephalotaxaceae |
Thinglenbuang |
T |
Fr, L |
4.53 |
|
7 |
Ficus auriculata |
Moraceae |
Theibal |
T |
L, Fr |
4.20 |
|
8 |
Protium serratum |
Burseraceae |
Bil |
T |
L, Fr, Sd |
3.04 |
|
9 |
Albizia chinensis |
Mimosaceae |
Vang |
T |
L, Fr, Sd |
1.57 |
|
10 |
Bombax insigne |
Bombacaceae |
Pang |
T |
L, Sd |
1.44 |
|
11 |
Dendrocalamus longispathus |
Poaceae |
Rawnal |
H |
Sh |
1.37 |
|
12 |
Prunus ceylanica |
Rosaceae |
Ruphir |
T |
Fr, Sd |
1.21 |
|
13 |
Garcinia succifolia |
Clusiaceae |
Tuaithleng |
T |
L, Fr, Sd |
1.15 |
|
14 |
Cassia javanica |
Caesalpiniaceae |
Makpazangkang |
T |
L, Fl, Sd |
0.99 |
|
15 |
Ficus semicordata |
Moraceae |
Theipui |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.98 |
|
16 |
Melocana baccifera |
Poaceae |
Mautak |
H |
Sh |
0.97 |
|
17 |
Gmelia arborea |
Magnoliaceae |
Ngiau |
T |
L |
0.94 |
|
18 |
Antidesma bunius |
Fabaceae |
Thingkha |
T |
L, Fr |
0.94 |
|
19 |
Aporosa octandra |
Euphorbiaceae |
Chhawntual |
T |
L, Sd |
0.93 |
|
20 |
Albizia odoratissima |
Moraceae |
Kangtekpa |
T |
L, Sd |
0.91 |
|
21 |
Ficus elastica |
Moraceae |
Thialret |
T |
Fl, L |
0.87 |
|
22 |
Parkia timoriana |
Mimosaceae |
Zawngtah |
T |
Sd, L |
0.87 |
|
23 |
Dioscorea pentaphylla |
Verbenaceae |
Thlanvawng |
C |
L, Sd |
0.81 |
|
24 |
Musa ornata |
Musaceae |
Changvandawt |
T |
Fl, Fr |
0.76 |
|
25 |
Aglaia edulis |
Meliaceae |
Raithei |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.76 |
|
26 |
Bischofia javanica |
Euphorbiaceae |
Khuangthli |
T |
L, Fr |
0.75 |
|
27 |
Magnolia oblonga |
Magnoliaceae |
Ngiau |
T |
L, Fr |
0.74 |
|
28 |
Derris robusta |
Fabaceae |
Thingkha |
T |
L, Fl, Sd |
0.72 |
|
29 |
Gnetum gnemon |
Gnetaceae |
Pelh |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.70 |
|
30 |
Bombax ceiba |
Bombacaceae |
Phunchawng |
T |
Fl, L |
0.66 |
|
31 |
Artocarpus nitidus |
Moraceae |
Tatte |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.65 |
|
32 |
Mallotus macrostachyus |
Euphorbiaceae |
Kharpa |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.64 |
|
33 |
Chukrasia tabularis |
Meliaceae |
Zawngtei |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.61 |
|
34 |
Toona ciliata |
Meliaceae |
Teipui |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.57 |
|
35 |
Mangifera indica |
Anacardiaceae |
Ramtheihai |
T |
Fl, Fr |
0.56 |
|
36 |
Syzygium cumini |
Myrtaceae |
Lenhmui |
T |
L, Fl, Sd |
0.55 |
|
37 |
Ficus rumphii |
Moraceae |
Hmawng |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.55 |
|
38 |
Ficus racemosa |
Moraceae |
Theichek |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.54 |
|
39 |
Ficus retusa |
Moraceae |
Rihnim |
T |
L, Fr |
0.54 |
|
40 |
Dillenia indica |
Dilleniaceae |
Kawrthindeng |
T |
L, Fr, Fl |
0.51 |
|
41 |
Spondius pinnata |
Anacardiaceae |
Tawitaw |
T |
L, Fr |
0.49 |
|
42 |
Dysoxylum gotadhora |
Meliaceae |
Sahatah |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.48 |
|
43 |
Hibiscus macrophyllus |
Malvaceae |
Vaiza |
T |
L, Fl |
0.48 |
|
44 |
Caesalpinia cucullata |
Caesalpiniaceae |
Hlingkhang |
C |
L, Fl, Sd |
0.47 |
|
45. |
Anogeisus acuminata |
Combretaceae |
Zairum |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.46 |
|
46 |
Litsea monopetala |
Lauraceae |
Nauthak |
T |
Fr |
0.45 |
|
47 |
Hydnocarpus kurzii |
Flacourtiaceae |
Khawitur |
T |
L, Fl |
0.44 |
|
48 |
Heliconia rostrata |
Heliconiaceae |
Changelpar |
H |
Fl |
0.43 |
|
49 |
Duabanga grandiflora |
Sonneratiaceae |
Zuang |
T |
L, Fl, Fr, Sd |
0.41 |
|
50 |
Schima wallichii |
Theaceae |
Khiang |
T |
L, Fr, Fl |
0.37 |
|
51 |
Xantolis tomentosa |
Sapotaceae |
Maudo |
T |
L, Fr |
0.37 |
|
52 |
Terminalia crenulata |
Combrataceae |
Tualram |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.36 |
|
53 |
Castanopsis tribuloides |
Fagaceae |
Thingsia |
T |
L, Sd |
0.36 |
|
54 |
Walsura robusta |
Meliaceae |
Perte |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.31 |
|
55 |
Phyllanthus emblica |
Phyllanthaceae |
Sunhlu |
T |
Fr |
0.30 |
|
56 |
Terminalia myriocarpa |
Combretaceae |
Char |
T |
L, Fl, Fr |
0.21 |
|
57 |
Vitex quinata |
Verbenaceae |
Thlengreng |
T |
L, Fl, Sd |
0.12 |
L—Leaves | FL—Flower
| Fr—Fruits | Sh—Shoots | S—Seeds | T—Tree | H—Herb |
C—Climber.
Table 2. Distribution
of feeding plant species in the study site in order of food preference.
|
Species name |
Frequency of
Occurrence |
RF |
R Den |
R Dom |
IVI |
|
Artocarpus lakoocha |
12.00 |
2.92 |
2.94 |
1.10 |
6.96 |
|
Albizia procera |
7.00 |
1.70 |
2.52 |
4.44 |
8.00 |
|
Glochidion hyneanum |
4.00 |
0.97 |
1.26 |
1.61 |
3.85 |
|
Diospyros glandulosa |
5.00 |
1.22 |
0.84 |
1.21 |
3.27 |
|
Albizia lebbeck |
7.00 |
1.70 |
2.56 |
2.42 |
6.69 |
|
Cephalotaxus graffithii |
7.00 |
1.70 |
1.68 |
0.61 |
3.99 |
|
Ficus auriculata |
2.00 |
0.49 |
0.85 |
13.86 |
15.20 |
|
Protium serratum |
6.00 |
1.46 |
1.28 |
0.22 |
2.96 |
|
Albizia chinensis |
5.00 |
1.22 |
1.28 |
1.69 |
4.19 |
|
Bombax insigne |
4.00 |
0.97 |
1.28 |
4.84 |
7.10 |
|
Dendrocalamus longispathus |
18.00 |
4.38 |
3.36 |
0.10 |
7.84 |
|
Prunus ceylanica |
8.00 |
1.95 |
1.71 |
1.03 |
4.68 |
|
Garcinia succifolia |
5.00 |
1.22 |
1.71 |
0.68 |
3.60 |
|
Cassia javanica |
8.00 |
1.95 |
2.10 |
0.91 |
4.96 |
|
Ficus semicordata |
5.00 |
1.22 |
1.28 |
0.62 |
3.12 |
|
Melocana baccifera |
20.00 |
4.87 |
3.78 |
0.05 |
8.70 |
|
Gmelia arborea |
4.00 |
0.97 |
1.28 |
4.05 |
6.31 |
|
Antides mabunius |
5.00 |
1.22 |
1.71 |
0.81 |
3.73 |
|
Aporosa octandra |
11.00 |
2.68 |
1.71 |
0.46 |
4.85 |
|
Albizia richardiana |
8.00 |
1.95 |
2.56 |
1.88 |
6.39 |
|
Ficus elastica |
3.00 |
0.73 |
0.85 |
5.24 |
6.83 |
|
Parkia timoriana |
8.00 |
1.95 |
2.14 |
0.72 |
4.81 |
|
Dioscorea pentaphylla |
9.00 |
2.19 |
2.56 |
0.97 |
5.72 |
|
Musa ornata |
14.00 |
3.41 |
2.99 |
0.27 |
6.67 |
|
Aglaia edulis |
11.00 |
2.68 |
2.56 |
0.81 |
6.05 |
|
Bischofia javanica |
7.00 |
1.70 |
2.14 |
0.71 |
4.55 |
|
Magnolia oblonga |
3.00 |
0.97 |
1.28 |
3.23 |
5.48 |
|
Derris robusta |
12.00 |
2.92 |
2.56 |
0.54 |
6.03 |
|
Gnetum gnemon |
6.00 |
1.46 |
1.28 |
0.07 |
2.81 |
|
Bombax ceiba |
5.00 |
1.22 |
1.28 |
10.89 |
13.39 |
|
Artocarpus nitidus |
9.00 |
2.19 |
1.71 |
1.21 |
5.11 |
|
Mallotus macrostachyus |
6.00 |
1.46 |
2.14 |
1.29 |
4.88 |
|
Chukrasia tabularis |
8.00 |
1.95 |
2.14 |
0.56 |
4.65 |
|
Toona ciliata |
4.00 |
0.97 |
1.71 |
4.84 |
7.52 |
|
Mangifera indica |
8.00 |
1.95 |
2.56 |
0.50 |
5.01 |
|
Syzygium cumini |
5.00 |
1.22 |
1.28 |
2.42 |
4.92 |
|
Ficus rumphii |
3.00 |
0.73 |
1.28 |
3.32 |
5.33 |
|
Ficus racemosa |
3.00 |
0.73 |
1.28 |
3.23 |
5.24 |
|
Ficus retusa |
3.00 |
0.73 |
1.28 |
2.39 |
4.40 |
|
Dillenia indica |
4.00 |
0.97 |
0.85 |
1.21 |
3.04 |
|
Spondius pinnata |
6.00 |
1.46 |
1.71 |
1.41 |
4.58 |
|
Dysoxylum gotadhora |
4.00 |
0.97 |
1.28 |
0.54 |
2.80 |
|
Hibiscus macrophyllus |
5.00 |
1.22 |
1.28 |
1.05 |
3.55 |
|
Caesalpinia cucullata |
16.00 |
3.89 |
1.71 |
0.12 |
5.73 |
|
Anogeissus acuminata |
10.00 |
2.43 |
1.71 |
0.69 |
4.83 |
|
Litsea monopetala |
5.00 |
1.22 |
1.71 |
1.41 |
4.34 |
|
Hydnocarpus kurzii |
5.00 |
1.22 |
1.28 |
0.44 |
2.94 |
|
Heliconia rostrata |
8.00 |
1.95 |
1.71 |
0.24 |
3.90 |
|
Duabanga grandiflora |
9.00 |
2.19 |
1.71 |
0.20 |
4.10 |
|
Schima wallichii |
11.00 |
2.68 |
1.71 |
0.38 |
4.77 |
|
Xantolis tomentosa |
7.00 |
1.70 |
2.14 |
0.14 |
3.98 |
|
Terminalia crenulata |
4.00 |
0.97 |
1.28 |
1.47 |
3.73 |
|
Castanopsis tribuloides |
7.00 |
1.70 |
1.28 |
0.36 |
3.34 |
|
Walsurarobusta |
13.00 |
3.16 |
2.14 |
0.36 |
5.66 |
|
Phyllanthus emblica |
8.00 |
1.95 |
1.71 |
0.64 |
4.30 |
|
Terminalia myriocarpa |
7.00 |
1.70 |
1.71 |
0.85 |
4.26 |
|
Vitex quinata |
4.00 |
0.97 |
1.71 |
1.67 |
4.36 |
RF—Relative frequency
| RDen—Relative density | R Dom—Relative dominance |
IVI—Important value index.
Table 3. Monthly
variation in feeding time (%) on each plant species during 2018–2020.
|
|
Plant species |
Sep |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
No. of food plants
eaten in 12 months |
|
1 |
Aglaia edulis |
0.9 |
- |
0.9 |
1.9 |
1.3 |
9.2 |
6.2 |
1.8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
7 |
|
2 |
Albizia procera |
11.8 |
7.3 |
11 |
11.3 |
11.4 |
9 |
10 |
- |
4.3 |
19.3 |
3.5 |
12 |
11 |
|
3 |
Albizia chinensis |
2.6 |
9.0 |
4 |
- |
2.2 |
8.3 |
11 |
6.2 |
2.5 |
3.4 |
1.3 |
4.1 |
11 |
|
4 |
Albizia lebbeck |
8.8 |
12.6 |
11.6 |
13.5 |
8.8 |
11.7 |
8.1 |
3.3 |
5.6 |
2.4 |
5.9 |
- |
11 |
|
5 |
Albizia richardiana |
0.3 |
0.6 |
- |
1.1 |
1.2 |
5.2 |
5.4 |
2.3 |
- |
- |
- |
3.1 |
8 |
|
6 |
Anogeissus acuminata |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1.5 |
2.7 |
2.3 |
- |
- |
- |
0.5 |
- |
4 |
|
7 |
Antidesma bunius |
- |
0.8 |
- |
0.5 |
1.2 |
1.4 |
1.7 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
- |
9 |
|
8 |
Aporosa octandra |
0.2 |
- |
2.5 |
- |
0.7 |
1.5 |
2.6 |
- |
- |
- |
0.6 |
- |
6 |
|
9 |
Artocarpus chaplasha |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.3 |
2.0 |
- |
2.9 |
2.6 |
1.5 |
2.0 |
- |
0.8 |
- |
9 |
|
10 |
Artocarpus lakoocha |
13.5 |
13.9 |
14.5 |
11.1 |
12.6 |
17.2 |
13.2 |
9.5 |
14.3 |
17.1 |
10.8 |
13.2 |
12 |
|
11 |
Bischofia javanica |
- |
- |
1.2 |
1.9 |
2.6 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
- |
2.3 |
- |
8 |
|
12 |
Bombax ceiba |
- |
- |
1.3 |
1.7 |
1.0 |
3.2 |
2.1 |
0.8 |
1.8 |
- |
1.5 |
- |
8 |
|
13 |
Bombax insigne |
8.6 |
1.5 |
6.4 |
8.6 |
5.0 |
4.0 |
3.7 |
6.1 |
- |
8.2 |
2.8 |
1.4 |
11 |
|
14 |
Caesalpinia cucullata |
0.7 |
0.6 |
- |
- |
0.0 |
2.1 |
2 |
0.9 |
1.8 |
1.4 |
- |
0.5 |
9 |
|
15 |
Cassia javanica |
1.5 |
0.6 |
- |
- |
1.4 |
2.1 |
1.9 |
1.1 |
- |
- |
0.7 |
2.8 |
8 |
|
16 |
Castanopsis tribuloides |
0.8 |
1.8 |
- |
0.5 |
0.0 |
2.1 |
1.9 |
2.5 |
2.2 |
- |
- |
1.8 |
9 |
|
17 |
Cephalotaxus graffithii |
3.2 |
2.3 |
3.8 |
4.5 |
3.9 |
3.1 |
3.9 |
5.6 |
6.4 |
1.8 |
3.2 |
5.5 |
12 |
|
18 |
Chukrasia tabularis |
- |
- |
- |
2.2 |
0.9 |
1.6 |
2.9 |
2.3 |
3.4 |
- |
2.7 |
0.9 |
8 |
|
19 |
Dendrocalamus longispathus |
4.5 |
2.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1.6 |
3.8 |
2.5 |
5 |
|
20 |
Derris robusta |
- |
- |
0.6 |
- |
1.6 |
1.9 |
1.4 |
- |
- |
- |
3.6 |
1.1 |
6 |
|
21 |
Dillenia indica |
0.8 |
- |
- |
1.1 |
0.8 |
1.4 |
1.3 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
2.7 |
5 |
|
22 |
Dioscorea pentaphylla |
- |
1.7 |
1.2 |
1.6 |
0.9 |
1.3 |
1.9 |
0.4 |
2.3 |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
|
23 |
Diospyros glandulosa |
9.5 |
12.4 |
9.3 |
12.9 |
10.8 |
0.3 |
2.6 |
10 |
13 |
9.4 |
2.8 |
- |
11 |
|
24 |
Duabanga grandiflora |
- |
- |
0.9 |
- |
2.3 |
1.2 |
1.1 |
- |
- |
- |
1.4 |
- |
5 |
|
25 |
Dysoxylum gotadhora |
- |
- |
- |
1.0 |
1.3 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
- |
- |
2.0 |
- |
6 |
|
26 |
Ficus auriculata |
2.7 |
2.5 |
- |
- |
0.0 |
- |
0.4 |
6.7 |
7.9 |
7.9 |
7.3 |
11.2 |
9 |
|
27 |
Ficus elastica |
- |
0.9 |
0.6 |
- |
1.2 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
- |
2 |
- |
0.6 |
- |
7 |
|
28 |
Ficus racemosa |
- |
0.6 |
2.4 |
- |
1.8 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
- |
0.9 |
- |
0.8 |
- |
7 |
|
29 |
Ficus religiosa |
0.5 |
0.7 |
- |
- |
1.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
- |
- |
- |
0.9 |
7 |
|
30 |
Ficus retusa |
0.6 |
- |
0.8 |
- |
- |
0.4 |
1.3 |
0.5 |
0.8 |
- |
1.4 |
- |
7 |
|
31 |
Ficus variegata |
0.6 |
1.6 |
- |
- |
1.0 |
- |
- |
0.6 |
1.8 |
0.4 |
1.3 |
1.9 |
8 |
|
32 |
Garcinia succifolia |
1.3 |
2.2 |
1.7 |
0.3 |
- |
- |
- |
1.5 |
0.5 |
1.2 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
9 |
|
33 |
Glochidion heyneanum |
5.9 |
10.7 |
9.5 |
10.3 |
7.4 |
- |
3.0 |
8.3 |
14.2 |
15.7 |
7.0 |
12.4 |
11 |
|
34 |
Gmelia arborea |
- |
0.8 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
2.1 |
- |
- |
0.6 |
1.6 |
- |
0.8 |
1.9 |
8 |
|
35 |
Gnetum gnemon |
- |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
0.9 |
- |
- |
0.7 |
0.5 |
- |
2.2 |
- |
7 |
|
36 |
Heliconia rostrata |
1.0 |
- |
1.7 |
- |
1.9 |
- |
- |
1.3 |
- |
0.7 |
1.7 |
- |
6 |
|
37 |
Hibiscus macrophyllus |
- |
- |
1.0 |
- |
1.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1.9 |
- |
3 |
|
38 |
Hydnocarpus kurzii |
- |
- |
- |
0.8 |
0.5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
|
39 |
Litsea monopetala |
1.0 |
0.4 |
- |
- |
0.0 |
- |
- |
0.9 |
- |
1.7 |
- |
1.9 |
8 |
|
40 |
Magnolia oblonga |
1.5 |
2.9 |
1.6 |
- |
1.3 |
- |
- |
1.6 |
1.9 |
- |
2.8 |
0.8 |
8 |
|
41 |
Mallotus macrostachyus |
- |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
1.1 |
- |
- |
0.8 |
- |
0.8 |
- |
0.6 |
7 |
|
42 |
Mangifera indica |
1.3 |
0.4 |
1.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1.8 |
- |
- |
1.3 |
2.0 |
6 |
|
43 |
Melocana baccifera |
1.5 |
1.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.8 |
1.9 |
6.0 |
5 |
|
44 |
Musa ornata |
- |
- |
1.3 |
- |
0.5 |
- |
- |
0.5 |
- |
- |
3.2 |
- |
4 |
|
45 |
Parkia timoriana |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.8 |
0.7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
|
46 |
Phyllanthus emblica |
4.2 |
0.9 |
- |
1.1 |
- |
- |
- |
1.7 |
- |
- |
0.9 |
- |
5 |
|
47 |
Protium serratum |
7.2 |
2.8 |
2.4 |
1.9 |
- |
- |
- |
1.7 |
4.1 |
4.5 |
3.8 |
4.2 |
9 |
|
48 |
Prunus ceylanica |
1.8 |
1.6 |
- |
0.6 |
1.0 |
- |
- |
3.5 |
0.7 |
1.2 |
- |
0.9 |
8 |
|
49 |
Schima wallichii |
- |
- |
0.5 |
1.0 |
1.2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.9 |
- |
4 |
|
50 |
Spondius pinnata |
- |
- |
- |
0.4 |
- |
- |
- |
1.1 |
- |
- |
- |
2.8 |
3 |
|
51 |
Syzygium cumini |
- |
- |
1.6 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
- |
- |
0.4 |
- |
- |
1.3 |
- |
5 |
|
52 |
Terminalia crenulata |
- |
- |
- |
0.7 |
- |
- |
- |
1.3 |
- |
- |
1.5 |
- |
3 |
|
53 |
Terminalia myriocarpa |
- |
- |
- |
0.5 |
- |
- |
- |
0.3 |
- |
- |
2.8 |
- |
3 |
|
54 |
Toona ciliata |
- |
- |
1.5 |
2.3 |
0.9 |
- |
- |
1.7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
|
55 |
Vitex quinata |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
56 |
Walsura robusta |
- |
- |
0.5 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
- |
- |
1.1 |
- |
- |
1.3 |
- |
5 |
|
57 |
Xantolis tomentosa |
0.9 |
- |
1.3 |
- |
- |
0.8 |
- |
0.7 |
2.3 |
- |
1.1 |
- |
6 |
Table 4. Diurnal time
invested on feeding activity.
|
|
Month |
Leaves |
Flowers |
Fruits |
Seeds |
Shoots |
Diurnal time spent (%) |
||||||||||
|
2018–2019 |
2019–2020 |
Total |
2018–2019 |
2019–2020 |
Total |
2018–2019 |
2019–2020 |
Total |
2018–2019 |
2019–2020 |
Total |
2018–2019 |
2019–2020 |
Total |
|||
|
1 |
Sep |
142.8 |
221.2 |
364 |
0 |
5.8 |
5.8 |
34.2 |
100.6 |
134.8 |
22.4 |
8.0 |
30.4 |
8.4 |
21.4 |
29.8 |
39.22 |
|
2 |
Oct |
165.2 |
149.6 |
314.8 |
20.0 |
29.4 |
49.4 |
112.2 |
110.0 |
222.2 |
30.0 |
56.8 |
86.8 |
8.8 |
16.8 |
25.6 |
48.52 |
|
3 |
Nov |
161.8 |
136.4 |
298.2 |
33.4 |
33.4 |
66.8 |
109.6 |
117.6 |
227.2 |
22.0 |
61.8 |
83.8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
46.94 |
|
4 |
Dec |
143.3 |
149.6 |
292.9 |
51.4 |
20.8 |
72.2 |
107.4 |
48.0 |
155.4 |
44.9 |
49.0 |
93.9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
42.66 |
|
5 |
Jan |
162.6 |
150.4 |
313.0 |
78.1 |
32.0 |
110.1 |
79.2 |
116.2 |
195.4 |
106.8 |
124.8 |
231.6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
59.03 |
|
6 |
Feb |
204.2 |
246.1 |
450.3 |
94.4 |
94.0 |
188.4 |
15.0 |
8.4 |
23.4 |
5.6 |
4.0 |
9.6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
42.89 |
|
7 |
Mar |
311.4 |
206.6 |
518.0 |
97.4 |
91.6 |
189.0 |
49.2 |
12.0 |
61.2 |
5.6 |
24.2 |
29.8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
55.41 |
|
8 |
Apr |
144.6 |
104.6 |
249.2 |
79.8 |
55.1 |
134.9 |
30.8 |
97.0 |
127.8 |
23.6 |
65.6 |
89.2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
41.74 |
|
9 |
May |
144.0 |
139.0 |
283.0 |
76.0 |
56.0 |
132.0 |
30.3 |
90.0 |
120.3 |
0 |
53.9 |
53.9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
40.91 |
|
10 |
Jun |
64.5 |
97.0 |
161.5 |
49.6 |
47.0 |
96.6 |
107.9 |
111.2 |
219.1 |
9.0 |
13.0 |
22.0 |
7.6 |
0 |
7.6 |
35.19 |
|
11 |
Jul |
55.0 |
89.0 |
144.0 |
65.8 |
52.6 |
118.4 |
95.2 |
117.8 |
213.0 |
32.8 |
35.0 |
67.8 |
21.6 |
24.4 |
46 |
40.91 |
|
12 |
Aug |
39.4 |
36.2 |
75.6 |
43.8 |
5.6 |
49.4 |
109.4 |
151.0 |
260.4 |
47.4 |
93.6 |
141 |
28.0 |
29.2 |
57.2 |
40.52 |
For
figures & image - - click here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Adhikari, K., L. Khanal
& M.K. Chalise (2018). Status and effects
of food provisioning on ecology of Assamese Monkey (Macaca
assamensis) in Ramdi
area of Palpa, Nepal. Journal of Institute of
Science and Technology 22(2): 183–190. https://doi.org/10.3126/jist.v22i2.19611
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study
of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour 49:
227–267.
Bartlett, T.Q. (1999). Feeding and Ranging
Behaviour of the White-Headed Gibbon (Hylobates
lar) in KhaiYai National Park, Thailand. PhD
Thesis, Washington University, 192 pp.
Boonratana, R., M.K. Chalise, J. Das, S. Htun &
R.J. Timmins (2020). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/iucn-red-list-threatened-species.
Downloaded on 22 May 2022.
Boonratana, R., M. Chalise, J. Das, S. Htun &
R.J. Timmins (2008). Macaca assamensis. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T12549A3354977. Downloaded on 22 May
2022. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T12549A3354977.en
Chalise, M.K. (1999). Report on Assamese
monkeys (Macaca assamensis)
of Nepal. Asian Primates 7: 7–11.
Chalise,
M.K., H. Ogawa & B. Pandey (2013). Assamese
Monkeys in Nagarjun Forest of ShivapuriNagarjun
National Park. Tribhuvan University Journal 28: 181–189.
Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey of
Forest Types of India. New Delhi: Government of India, 404pp.
Choudhury, A. (2001). Primates of NE
India: an overview of their distribution and conservation status. ENVIS Bull
Wild Protected Areas 1: 92–101.
Choudhury, A. (2011). Human Wildlife
Conflict in Assam (North-east India) with Special Reference to Wild Elephants
and Primates, pp. 63–64. Abstracts of II International Congress. Problematic
Wildlife conservation and management. Genazzano,
Rome, Italy.
Deori, B.B., P. Deb &
H. Singha (2017). Tree Diversity and Population
Structure of a Protected Lowland Tropical Forest in Barail
Hill Range, Northeast India. International Journal of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences 42(4): 303–319.
Ghimire, S.C., L. Khanal
& M.K. Chalise (2021). Feeding ecology of
Assamese macaques (Macaca assamensis) troops in Kaligandaki
and Budhigandaki River basins of central Nepal. Biodiversitas 22: 2625–2634.
Gupta, A.K. & A. Kumar (1994). Feeding ecology and
conservation of the Phayre’s leaf monkey Presbytis phayrei
in northeast India. Biological Conservation 69: 301–306.
Hambali, K., A. Ismail,
B.M.M. Zain, A. Amir & F.A. Karim (2014). Diet of Long-Tailed
Macaques (Macaca fascicularis)
at the entrance of Kuala Selangor Nature Park (Anthropogenic Habitat): food
selection that leads to human-macaque conflict. Acta Biologica
Malaysiana 3(2): 58–68. https://doi.org/10.7593/abm/3.2.58
Hanya, G. (2004). Seasonal variations
in the activity
budget of Japanese Macaques in
the coniferous forest
of Yakushima: effects of
food and temperature. American Journal of
Primatology 63: 165–177.
Huang, Z., C. Huang, C. Tang, L. Huang, H. Tang, G. Ma
& G. Zhou (2015). Dietary Adaptations of Assamese Macaques (Macaca assamensis)
in Limestone Forests in Southwest China. American Journal of Primatology
77: 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22320
Hegde, N. & C. Manpoong
(2017). Floral Biodiversity in Buffer Zone of Dampa Tiger Reserve and Impact of Developmental Activities. The International
Conference on Natural Resources Management for Sustainable Development and
Rural Livelihoods, Mizoram University, Aizawl, India, 224 pp.
Irmayanti, L., R. Ashari, Peniwidiyanti, F. Umanailo, A.B. Rangkuti, A. Fatrawana, Nurhikmah, A.S. Nurdin & M. Nur (2022). Flora composition
and diversity in Mount Sibela Educational Forest,
South Halmahera, North Maluku. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 959: 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/959/1/012015
Jaman, M.F. & M.A. Huffman
(2012).The effect of urban and rural habitats and resource
type on activity budgets of commensal rhesus macaques (Macaca
mulatta) in Bangladesh. Primates 54:
49–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-012-0330-6
Johnson, T.H., L.A. Mound & R. Varatharajan
(2021). A new species of Merothrips
from the Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram, India (Thysanoptera, Terebrantia). Zootaxa 4926(4): 597–600. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4926.4.10
Khatiwada, S., P.K. Paudel, M.K. Chalise & H.
Ogawa (2020). Comparative ecological and behavioral
study of Macaca assamensis
and M. mulatta in Shivapuri
Nagarjun National Park, Nepal. Primates 61(4):
603–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-020-00810-9
Koirala, S. & M. Chalise
(2014). Feeding ecology of Assamese macaque (Macaca assamensis)
in the Nagarjun Forest of Shivapuri
Nagarjun National Park, Nepal. Nepalese Journal of
Zoology 2: 31–38.
Koirala, S., M.K. Chalise,
H.B. Katuwal, R. Gaire, B.
Pandey & H. Ogawa (2017). Diet and Activity of Macaca
assamensis in Wild and Semi-Provisioned Groups in
Shivapuri Nagarjun National
Park, Nepal. Folia Primatologica 88: 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1159/000477581
Li, Y., Z. Huang, Z. Qihai,
G. Mac & C. Huangd (2019). Daily activity
pattern in Assamese Macaques inhabiting limes tone forest, southwest Guangxi,
China. Global Ecology and Conservation 20: e00709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00709
Li, Y., M. Guangzhi, Z. Qihai, L. Youbang & H. Zhonghao (2020). Nutrient contents
predict the bamboo-leaf-based diet of Assamese Macaques living in limestone
forests of southwest Guangxi, China. Ecology and Evolution 10:
5570–5581.
Mandal, J. & T.R.S. Raman (2016). Shifting agriculture
supports more tropical forest birds than oil palm or teak plantations in
Mizoram, northeast India. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:
345–359.
Mazumder, M.K. (2014). Diversity, habitat
preferences, and conservation of the primates of southern Assam, India: The
story of a primate paradise. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 7:
347–354.
Nila, S., B. Suryobroto & K.A. Widayati
(2014). Dietary Variation of Long Tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis)
in TelagaWarna, Bogor, West Java. Journal of
Biosciences 21(1): 8–14. http://doi.org/10.4308/hjb.21.1.8
Pachuau, S.V., Q. Qureshi,
B. Habib & V. Nijman (2013). Habitat use and documentation of
a Historic Decline of Western Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) in Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram, India. Primate
Conservation 27: 85–90
Poulsen, J.R., C.J. Clark & B.M. Bolker (2011). Decoupling the effects of
logging and hunting on an Afrotropical animal community. Ecological
Applications 21(5): 1819–1836. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1083.1
Regmi, G.R., K.A.I. Nekaris, K. Kandel & V. Nijman (2013). Crop-raiding
macaques: predictions, patterns and perceptions from Langtang National Park,
Nepal. Endangered Species Research 20(3): 217–226.
Sawmliana, M. (2013). The Book of Mizoram
Plants. Lois Bet Print & Publication, Chandmari, Aizawl, 526 pp.
Schulke, O., D. Pesek, B.J. Whitman, J. Ostner
(2011). Ecology of Assamese macaques (Macaca
assamensis) at PhuKhioe
Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand. Journal of Wildlife in Thailand 18: 23–29.
Srivastava, A. (1999). Primates of Northeast
India. Megadiversity Press, Bikaner, 207 pp.
Srivastava, A. (2006). Conservation of
Threatened Primates of Northeast India. Primate Conservation 20:
107–113.
Solanki, G.S., A. Kumar & B.K. Sharma (2008). Feeding Ecology of Trachypithecus pileatus
in India. International Journal of Primatology 29: 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-008-9234-0
Timmins, R.J. & J.W. Duckworth (2013). Distribution and
habitat of Assamese Macaque Macaca assamensis in Lao PDR, including its use of
low-altitude Karsts. Primate Conservation 26: 103–114.
Tsuji, Y., G. Hanya &
C.C. Grueter (2013). Feeding strategies
of primates in temperate and alpine forests: comparison of Asian macaques and
colobines. Primates 54: 201–215.
Ulibarri, L.R. & K.N. Gartland
(2021). Group Composition and Social Structure of Red-Shanked
Doucs (Pygathrix nemaeus)
at Son Tra Nature Reserve, Vietnam. Folia Primatologica 92: 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1159/000518594
Vanlalsiammawii, V.L. Remruatpuii, Malsawmhriatzuali, Lalmuansanga, G.Z. Hmar, S. Sailo,
Ht. Decemson, L. Biakzuala
& H.T. Lalremsanga (2020). An additional record
of the Tamdil Leaf-litter Frog Leptobrachella
tamdil (Sengupta et al., 2010) (Amphibia: Megophryidae) from Dampa Tiger
Reserve, Mizoram, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(8): 15951–15954. https://doi.org/10.11609/jot.5999.12.8.15951-15954
Zhou, Q., H. Wei, Z.
Huang & C. Huang (2011). Diet of the Assamese macaque Macaca assamensis
in limestone habitats of Nonggang, China. Current
Zoology 57: 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00709