Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 December 2023 | 15(12): 24291–24298
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8073.15.12.24291-24298
#8073 | Received 25 June 2022 | Final received 17 November 2023 | Finally
accepted 29 November 2023
Patterns of
livestock depredation by carnivores: Leopard Panthera
pardus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Grey Wolf Canis lupus (Linnaeus, 1758) in and around Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary, Jharkhand, India
Shahzada Iqbal 1 & Orus Ilyas 2
1,2 Department of Wildlife Sciences,
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 202002, India.
1 shahzada90@yahoo.com
(corresponding author), 2 orus16@gmail.com
Editor: Angie Appel, Wild Cat Network, Bad Marienberg, Germany. Date of publication: 26 December
2023 (online & print)
Citation: Iqbal, S. & O. Ilyas (2023). Patterns of livestock depredation by
carnivores: Leopard Panthera pardus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Grey Wolf Canis lupus (Linnaeus, 1758) in and around Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary, Jharkhand, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(12): 24291–24298. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8073.15.12.24291-24298
Copyright: © Iqbal & 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: There was no funding for this research project.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Shahzada Iqbal
(SI)-—research scholar, currently enrolled in the PhD programme at Aligarh Muslim University in the Department of Wildlife Sciences. Primary academic interests are Political ecology and Human-Wolf interaction. Current project is in the Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary in Jharkhand. Orus Ilyas (OI)—associate
professor in the Department of Wildlife Sciences at Aligarh Muslim University, India. She has studied mammals in India since 1995 and has worked in the high-altitude Himalayas for more than 25 years.
Author contributions: Concept & Design: SI & OI; Supervision: OI;
Data collection: SI; Analysis: SI & OI; Manuscript writing: SI;
Manuscript review & comments: SI & OI.
Acknowledgements: We thank all staff members of Palamau Tiger Reserve, Palamau,
Jharkhand for their support throughout the course of field work. We thank
Jharkhand Forest Department for permission and for facilitating this work. We
are grateful to Shri Mukesh Kumar, IFS, Deputy
Director, Palamau Tiger Reserve (South Division) for
his valuable inputs and continuous support. We are also thankful to Shri Manish
Kumar Bakshi and Devanshu Arun Agarwal for useful discussions which helped
considerably in improving the manuscript.
Keywords: Compensation data, depredation hotspots,
financial benefits, large predators, livestock enclosures, poverty, red
corridor, temporary relief.
Livestock
depredation by large carnivores and the resulting retaliatory killing represent
pressing conservation concerns on a global scale (Madhusudan & Mishra 2003;
Thirgood et al. 2005; Treves et al. 2006). Large
predators can have significant economic implications at the local level,
particularly in impoverished rural areas where households are least equipped to
bear such expenses. These costs can hinder the efforts of local communities,
particularly traditional pastoralists, to alleviate poverty (Dickman et al.
2011). Negative human-carnivore interactions significantly contribute to large
predator reductions, and reducing these interactions is critical to sustain
sustainable carnivore populations (LeFlore et al.
2019). Livestock predation is a significant element influencing the effective
coexistence of large carnivores and humans from pastoral villages (Decker et
al. 2002; Habib et al. 2015).
The
Leopard Panthera pardus
has been assessed as ‘Vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,
and there is evidence for a decline of the global population (Stein et al.
2020). Currently, the Leopard occupies just around 25% of its historical range
(Jacobson et al. 2016). Additionally, it demonstrates high adaptability and
lives in diverse habitats such as tropical rainforests, deserts, and temperate
regions (Kitchener 1991).
The
Indian Leopard subspecies P. p. fusca exhibits
a wide distribution across various habitats throughout India, with the
exception of the arid Thar desert and Sundarban
mangroves (Prater 1980; Daniel 1996). Within forested landscapes in India, it
plays a crucial role as a major predator and coexists with other apex predators
such as the Tiger P. tigris, Lion P. leo, and Dhole Cuon
alpinus (Jhala et al.
2021). The Leopard is remarkably adaptable when compared to other large
carnivores in terms of its habitat preferences and dietary requirements, as it
can survive in agro-pastoral landscapes, plantations,
and even in close proximity to human settlements, both rural and urban (Nowell
& Jackson 1996). In areas where it coexists with humans in a shared
landscape, it is likely that some predation on domestic animals occurs (Athreya & Belsare 2007).
Furthermore,
in India, the Grey Wolf Canis lupus
inhabits the dry and semi-arid plains and some forested parts of central India
and the Terai plains (Jhala
2003; Dey et al. 2010; Sharma et al. 2019). It also
occurs in open grasslands, shrub regions, and rocky slopes, as well as moist
forested habitats in Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand, and portions of West Bengal
(Shahi 1982). It thrives on somewhat rocky, undulating terrain with minimal
foliage cover (Jhala & Giles 1991; Mahajan & Khandal 2021).
The
predation on livestock is a primary factor driving human-wolf interaction
worldwide, especially concerning the Grey Wolf (Treves et al. 2002; Kaczensky et al. 2008; Ambarlı
2019; Hamid et al. 2019). The interaction between wolves and livestock poses a
significant challenge in wildlife management, particularly in Asia, where Grey
Wolf populations extensively overlap with livestock husbandry (Reading et al.
1998; Dou et al. 2014; Ekernas et al. 2017; Mahajan
et al. 2021). To ensure the conservation of large carnivores, the government
has started many compensation schemes for local people for the depredation of
their livestock. The majority of large carnivore population lives within
protected areas (PAs) (Bargali & Ahmad 2018). PAs
act as sources, whereas adjoining forests and corridors outside PAs aid in the
spread of large as well as other predators towards sinks (Bargali
& Ahmad 2018). As a result, habitat outside protected areas ensures
long-term demographic and genetic heterogeneity (Jhala
et al. 2015; Bargali & Ahmad 2018).
Communities
living near PAs, on the other hand, face restricted historical rights, constraints
on traditional livelihoods, and a minor participation in maintaining and
safeguarding such protected places (Maikhuri et al.
2002; Negi & Nautiya1 2003; Chan et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2011).
Livestock depredation by both Grey Wolf and Leopard in and around the Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary can have significant implications
for the tribal villagers residing in the area, who heavily depend on their
livestock as a major source of livelihood (Mahaling
& Kumar 2021). These incidents of predation may result in a negative
perception among the villagers, as the loss of livestock not only leads to
economic hardships but also generates tensions and conflicts between humans and
wildlife (Mekonen 2020). It is imperative to
acknowledge the consequences of depredation patterns against the inhabitants in
and around the PAs to balance conservation goals (Terborgh
& Peres 2002; Naughton-Treves et al. 2005; Bruyere
et al. 2009; Karanth & DeFries
2010).
The
objective of this study is to understand the livestock depredation patterns by
Grey Wolf and Leopard in and around Mahuadanr Wolf
Sanctuary. The landscape sustains a substantial population of Grey Wolves,
estimated to be 55 individuals in the year 2010 (Mahaling
& Kumar 2021). Furthermore, the Leopard population in the landscape was
estimated at approximately 36±9 individuals in 2018 (Jhala
et al. 2021). Hence, proper carnivore management initiatives are necessary in
and outside Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary, and in
adjoining territorial forest divisions facilitating large carnivore movement
across the landscape. Moreover, wildlife conservation is a difficult challenge
in India’s red corridor, i.e., the eastern, central, and southern regions of
the country where the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency is most active (Prasad 2015). Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary falls within the jurisdiction of
the Latehar district of Jharkhand, which is also part
of the red corridor (Press Information Bureau 2019). The Red Corridor region of
India is often perceived as one of the most underdeveloped areas in the
country. The socio-economic progress in this region has been highly
unsatisfactory since independence, contributing to the Maoists’ ability to gain
support from the marginalized communities residing there (Mukhopadhyay & Banik 2013).
Livestock depredation by the large carnivores contributes to poverty
(Dickman et al. 2011). It is critical to understand every detail about the
causes of poverty, as this will ultimately aid in wildlife conservation.
Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary is located in Mahuadanr
Block of Latehar district in the state of Jharkhand
and it is administered under Palamau Tiger Reserve
Circle (Mahaling & Kumar 2021). The sanctuary was
declared in 1976 vide Government of Bihar (Mahaling
& Kumar 2021). The smallest administrative unit in the study area is
sub-beat (Mahaling & Kumar 2021). The sanctuary
falls mainly into two beats, namely Aksi and Mahuadanr of the Mahuadanr range
(Mahaling & Kumar 2021). A small forest area of
the Baresanr range of Chetna sub-beat is also
included in the sanctuary (Rawat 2013). The Aksi beat
consists of five sub-beats, namely Sarnadih, Aksi, Lodh, Parewa,
and Pakardih, encompassing 18 protected forest areas
(Mahaling & Kumar 2021). The Mahuadanr
beat consists of three sub-beats covering six protected forest areas. The total
forest area in the sanctuary is 63.256 km2 in size (Mahaling & Kumar 2021). The sanctuary borders hill
ranges of various elevations, and the western hilltops are flat with an
elevation of 1,170 m (Rawat 2013). The major parts are Chiro Pat, Orsa Pat, and Kukud Pat (Rawat
2013). The isolated hills are also nearer to valleys (Rawat 2013). Burha River is the major river draining the Mahuadanr valley (Mahaling &
Kumar 2021). The drainage system follows south to north and forms tributaries
of the Son river (Mahaling & Kumar 2021).
There
are 25 villages adjacent to the sanctuary, and the remaining 72 villages are in
the sanctuary’s buffer zone (Mahaling & Kumar
2021) with approximately 14,000 households (Census of India 2011). The
population constitutes 78.68% of scheduled tribes and 3.2% of scheduled castes
population (Census of India 2011).
The
climate in the region is characterized as humid and subtropical, featuring
three distinct seasons: a hot and dry summer, a cold winter, and a rainy season
(Mahaling & Kumar 2021). The cold season
typically spans from November–March, followed by the summer season from
April–mid-June, and the rainy season from mid-June–mid-October (Rawat 2013).
The topography of the area, a cup-shaped valley surrounded by hills,
contributes to high precipitation of 1,300 mm annually, of which about 90%
occurs during the monsoon season from June–October (Rawat 2013).
We
examined the Leopard and Grey Wolf depredation data collected from 2019 to 2021
by the wildlife authorities of the Mahuandanr Wolf
Sanctuary. Depredations on livestock such as Water Buffalo Bubalus
bubalis, Cattle Bos taurus,
Goat Capra hircus were included in the data.
We examined the Mahuandanr Wolf Sanctuary’s wildlife
section records on livestock in the sanctuary area. The wildlife section
conducts annual wildlife surveys twice in a year on various species (Mahaling & Kumar 2021).
We
examined the applications and compensation payments for livestock losses to
better understand the Mahuandanr Wolf Sanctuary’s
wildlife section acceptance and denial trends and cross-check figures. To avoid
inflated allegations, the sanctuary’s officials went to the depredation scene
within 24 hours of the incident to determine whether a Leopard or a Grey Wolf
killed the livestock or whether it died naturally. We also checked the maximum
number of depredations, both by village and community-wise.
Our
data is completely based on records of compensation paid to local people by the
wildlife section of Mahuandanr Wolf Sanctuary.
Chi-square test was used to determine the seasonal difference in livestock
depredation. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 24 and MS Excel
version 2021. The spatial analyst tool of QGIS (Version 2.18.25- Pisa, QGIS
Development Team 2018) was used to map the kill sites in and around Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary.
Between
January 2019 and November 2021, 74 livestock depredation incidents were
reported in the villages surrounding Mahuadanr Wolf
Sanctuary. These encompassed 21 incidents in 2019, 13 in 2020, and 40 in 2021.
The Leopard was responsible for 40 incidents, and the Grey Wolf for 34
incidents.
A
higher number of livestock depredation incidents were reported in Mahuandanr beat (n = 49), followed by Netarhat
(n = 14) and Aksi (n = 11). At the same time, the Belwar sub beat (n = 25), followed by the Lodh sub beat (n = 19) of the Mahuadanr
beat experienced the maximum number of incidents. Livestock depredation
incidents around Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary indicated
that Leopards were the main predator in the Belwar
sub-beat (n = 17) and Grey Wolf (n = 16) in the Lodh
sub-beat. In contrast, the Aksi sub-beat found a
minimum number of incidents. A comparison of livestock depredation incidents
across the seasons revealed that depredation by Leopards and Grey Wolves was
more during the winter season (n = 57) than the summer season (n = 9), and very
few incidents in the monsoon season (n = 8). There was no statistical
significance between the predators with respect to seasonal livestock
depredation.
Livestock
depredation incidents by Leopards and Grey Wolves differed temporally. Leopards
preyed on livestock more often during the evenings (n = 22) than by night (n =
14) and in the mornings (n = 4). Grey Wolves preyed on livestock more often in
the mornings (n = 14) than during the evenings (n = 11) and at night (n = 9).
There was a significant difference in livestock depredation by Leopard and wolf
among various temporal durations (χ2= 9.88, df
= 6, P<0.05).
The
pattern of livestock depredation differed between the Leopard and Grey Wolf.
Leopards mainly preyed upon Cows (n = 23; 57.5% of all), followed by Water
Buffalo (n = 9 ; 22.5%),
and others (Goat and Ox, n = 8; 20%), whereas Grey Wolf preyed mostly on Goats
(n = 34; 100%).
Dujardin
and Chutia villages of Belwar
sub-beat recorded the maximum cases of Leopard depredation. In contrast, the Lodh, Tewahi, and Mirgi villages of Lodh sub-beat
have a maximum of Grey Wolf depredation incidents.
Our
results show that livestock loss around Mahuadanr
Wolf Sanctuary was more often attributed to the Leopard than to the Grey Wolf.
The Leopard is thought to prefer small-sized livestock prey (Patterson et al.
2004). However, in our study area, the majority of compensation for Leopard
kills was paid for loss of Cattle and Water Buffalo. On the contrary, the
primary cause of Goat kills was attributed to predation by the Grey Wolf, which
seems to rely entirely on Goats as a food source. However, it is important to
consider that the data available is derived from government compensation
schemes, which exclusively focus on livestock and may not encompass wild
species. Therefore, conducting further studies is necessary to determine the
extent of the Grey Wolves prey dependency within the Mahuadanr
Wolf Sanctuary.
Altogether,
livestock depredation was higher in the winter season than in the monsoon and
summer seasons. This may be due to the fact that Grey Wolves usually leave the
region once their breeding season is over, as well as due to less human
mobility in the area during the winter (Mahaling
& Kumar 2021). Leopards prey mostly in the evening and night hours, which
may be owing to the Leopard’s nature as a nocturnal animal that is more active
in the latter half of the day (Athreys et al. 2015;
Chaudhari et al. 2020). Villagers usually return to their homes in the evening
with their livestock from the forest after grazing them, which might lead to
the predation by Leopards during the second half of the day (Mahaling & Kumar 2021).
The
maximum cases of livestock depredation were reported from the Mahuadanr forest beat. Moreover, the Leopard was the major
livestock predator in Belwar sub-beat while the Grey
Wolf in the Lodh sub-beat of Mahuadanr
forest beat. A relation could be drawn to the topography of Mahuadanr
Wolf Sanctuary, Lodh sub-beat is rockier and hillier,
which is the most suitable site for Grey Wolf dens (Rajpurohit
1999; Saren et al. 2019).
According
to the 20th Livestock Census (Department of Animal Husbandry &
Dairying 2019), the density of livestock in the Latehar
district is expanding, providing easy prey for predators (Mahaling
& Kumar 2021). Carnivores are frequently perceived as hazardous and
incongruous within landscapes predominantly influenced by humans (Athreya et al. 2020). In light of the growing instances of
livestock depredation by large carnivores in the vicinity of the Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary, the impact on the local
communities is concerning, potentially leading to economic hardships and an
increased risk of poverty among the villagers. In order to formulate practical
recommendations aimed at mitigating this situation, it is crucial to thoroughly
understand the underlying circumstances surrounding the incidents of predation
(Donikar et al. 2011; Mahajan et al. 2022). Through
an exploration of circumstantial evidence, it has been revealed that incidents
of livestock depredation by both predators are more prevalent during the winter
season. Additionally, variations in temporal patterns indicate that Leopards
tend to engage in livestock depredation more frequently during the evening
hours, while the Grey Wolf exhibits higher activity in predation during the morning
hours. In light of these findings, it is imperative for villagers to enhance
their guarding measures while grazing their livestock during these specific
seasons and times. Moreover, the Forest Department should exercise heightened
vigilance and bolster patrolling efforts during these critical hours.
Sustaining
this proactive approach is essential to effectively prevent livestock predation
(Suryawanshi et al. 2013). While compensation
provides temporary relief, it cannot compensate for the financial benefits that
would have been obtained had the livestock remained alive. Therefore, it is
crucial for the Forest Department to take proactive measures to establish trust
within the community. One potential strategy could involve implementing a
program to subsidize the strengthening of livestock enclosures, thereby
providing additional support to villagers in protecting their livestock from
carnivore predation.
For
figures - - click here for full PDF
Ambarlı, H. (2019). Analysis of Wolf–human conflicts: Implications for damage mitigation
measures. European Journal of Wildlife Research 65: 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-019-1320-4
Athreya, V. & A.V. Belsare (2007). Human-Leopard conflict management
guidelines. Kaati Trust, Pune. India, 63 pp.
Athreya, V., A. Srivathsa, M. Puri,
K.K. Karanth, N.S. Kumar & K.U. Karanth (2015). Spotted in the news: using media
reports to examine Leopard distribution, depredation, and management practices
outside protected areas in Southern India. PLoS
One 10(11): e0142647.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142647
Athreya, V., K. Isvaran, M. Odden,
J.D. Linnell, A. Kshettry, J. Krishnaswamy & U.K.
Karanth (2020). The impact of Leopards (Panthera pardus) on
livestock losses and human injuries in a human-use landscape in Maharashtra,
India. PeerJ 8: e8405. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8405
Bargali, H.S. & T. Ahmed (2018). Patterns of livestock
depredation by Tiger (Panthera tigris) and Leopard (Panthera
pardus) in and around Corbett Tiger Reserve,
Uttarakhand, India. Plos One 13(5):
e0195612. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195612
Bruyere, B.L., A.W. Beh & G. Lelengula
(2009). Differences
in perceptions of communication, tourism benefits, and management issues in a
protected area of rural Kenya. Environmental Management 43(1):
49–59.
Census of India (2011). Primary Census Abstract,
Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Government of India, New
Delhi. https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/data-visualizations/PopulationSearch_PCA_Indicators
Accessed 16 April 2022.
Chan, K.M., R.M. Pringle, J.A.I.
Ranganathan, C.L. Boggs, Y.L. Chan, P.R. Ehrlich, P.K. Haff,
N.E. Heller, K. Al-khafaji & D.P. Macmynowski (2007). When agendas collide: human
welfare and biological conservation. Conservation Biology 21(1):
59–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00570.x
Chaudhary, R., N. Zehra, A. Musavi & J.A. Khan (2020). Spatio-temporal partitioning and
coexistence between Leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) and Asiatic
Lion (Panthera leo
persica) in Gir
protected area, Gujarat, India. PloS
One 15(3): e0229045. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229045
Daniel, J.C. (1996). The Leopard in India – A
Natural History. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun, 228 pp.
Decker, D.J., T.B. Lauber &
W.F. Siemer (2002). Human-wildlife Conflict
Management. Siemer Human Dimensions Research
Unit, Cornell University Ithaca, New York, 47 pp.
Department of Animal Husbandry
& Dairying (2019). 20th Livestock Census. All India report. Ministry of Agriculture,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi, India, 55 pp.
Dey, S., V. Sagar, S. Dey
& S.K. Choudhary (2010). Sight record of the Indian Wolf Canis
lupus pallipes in the river Gandak
floodplains. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 107(1):
51–53.
Dickman, A.J., E.A. Macdonald
& D.W. Macdonald (2011). A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and
encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 108(34): 13937–13944. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012972108
Donikar, R.P., V.K. Patil, S.S. Narkhede,
A.D. Rane, D.N. Mokat &
S.G. Bhave (2011). Circumstantial and response
attitudes of people affected with livestock depredation by Leopards Panthera pardus
Linnaeus in Ratnagiri District, Maharashtra, India. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 108(1): 18.
Dou, H.S., H.H. Zhang, M.R. Wu
& M.Q. Gui (2014). Wolf Predation on livestock
around the Dalai Lake National Nature Reserve, Inner Mongolia, pp. 25–27. In: Buuveibaatar, B., J.K. Smith, A. Edwards & L. Ochirkhuyag (eds.). Proceedings of the
International Conference for the 20th Anniversary of
China-Mongolia-Russia Daurian International Protected
Area. Wildlife Conservation Society Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, 99 pp.
Ekernas, L.S., W.M. Sarmento, H.S. Davie, R.P.
Reading, J. Murdoch, G.J. Wingard, S. Amgalanbaatar
& J. Berger (2017). Desert pastoralists’ negative and positive effects on rare wildlife in
the Gobi. Conservation Biology 31(2): 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12881
Habib, B., A. Saxena, I. Mondal,
A. Rajvanshi, V.B. Mathur & H.S. Negi (2015). Proposed mitigation measures
for maintaining habitat contiguity and reducing wild animal mortality on NH 6
& 7 in the Central Indian Landscape. Technical Report, Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehradun and National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt. of India,
New Delhi, 101 pp.
Hamid, A., T. Mahmood, H. Fatima,
L. M. Hennelly, F. Akrim,
A. Hussain & M. Waseem (2019). Origin, ecology and human conflict of Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)
in Suleman Range, South Waziristan, Pakistan. Mammalia 83(6):
539–551. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2018-0167
Jacobson, A.P., P. Gerngross, J.R. Lemeris, R.F.
Schoonover, C. Anco, C. Breitenmoser-Würsten,
S.M. Durant, M.S. Farhadinia, P. Henschel, J.F. Kamler & A. Laguardia (2016). Leopard (Panthera
pardus) status, distribution, and the research
efforts across its range. PeerJ 4:
e1974. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1974
Jhala, Y.V. & R.H. Giles (1991). The status and conservation of
the Wolf in Gujarat and Rajasthan, India. Conservation Biology 5(4):
476–483.
Jhala, Y.V. (2003). Status, ecology and conservation of the Indian Wolf Canis
lupus pallipes Sykes. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 100(2&3): 293–307.
Jhala, Y.V., Q. Qureshi & R. Gopal (2015). The status of Tigers in India
2014. National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi and Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun.
Jhala, Y.V., Q. Qureshi & S.P. Yadav (2021). Status of Leopards, co-predators,
and megaherbivores in India, 2018. National Tiger Conservation Authority,
Government of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 301
pp.
Kaczensky, P., N. Enkhsaikhan, O. Ganbaatar
& C. Walzer (2008). The Great Gobi B Strictly
Protected Area in Mongolia – refuge or sink for Wolves Canis
lupus in the Gobi. Wildlife Biology 14(4): 444–456.
Karanth, K.K. & R. DeFries (2010). Conservation and management in
human-dominated landscapes: case studies from India. Biological
Conservation 143(12): 2865–2964.
Kitchener, A. (1991). Natural History of Wild Cats.
Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York, xxi + 280 pp.
LeFlore, E.G., T.K. Fuller, M. Tomeletso & A.B.
Stein (2019). Livestock
depredation by large carnivores in northern Botswana. Global Ecology
and Conservation 18: e00592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00592
Madhusudan, M.D. & C. Mishra
(2003). Why big,
fierce animals are threatened: conserving large mammals in densely populated
landscapes, pp. 31–55. In: Saberwal, V.K. & M. Rangajaran (Eds.). Battles over Nature: Science and the Politics of Wildlife Conservation. Orient Blackswan, 412 pp.
Mahajan, P. & D. Khandal (2021). Preliminary status of the Indian Grey Wolf in Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary. Canid Biology &
Conservation 23: 8–14.
Mahajan, P., R. Chaudhary, A. Kazi & D. Khandal (2022). Spatial Determinants of
Livestock Depredation and Human Attitude Toward Wolves in Kailadevi
Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Frontiers in Ecology and
Evolution 10: 855084. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.855084
Mahajan, P., D. Khandal & K. Chandrawal
(2021). Factors
Influencing habitat-use of Indian Grey Wolf in the semiarid landscape of
western India. Mammal Study 47: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3106/ms2021-0029
Mahaling, M.K. & M. Kumar (2021). Management Plan of Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary 2016–2017 to 2025–2026. Palamau Tiger Reserve, Government of Jharkhand, Medninagar, 302 pp.
Maikhuri, R.K., K.S. Rao, S. Nautiyal, A. Purohit,
R.L. Sennwal & K.G. Saxena (2002). Management options for Nanda
Devi Biosphere Reserve, pp. 49–70. Traditional Ecological Knowledge for
Manging Biosphere Reserves in South and Central Asia. Oxford & IBH
Publishing, New Delhi.
Mekonen, S. (2020). Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and
mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park,
Southeast Ethiopia. BMC Ecology 20(1): 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-020-00319-1
Miller, T.R., B.A. Minteer & L.C. Malan (2011). The new conservation debate: the
view from practical ethics. Biological Conservation 144(3):
948–957.
Mukhopadhyay, J.P. & N. Banik (2013). The Red Corridor Region of India: What Do the Data
Tell Us? Institute for Financial Management and Research, Hyderabad, India,
41 pp.
Naughton-Treves, L., M.B. Holland
& K. Brandon (2005). The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining
local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:
219–252. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507
Negi, C.S. & S. Nautiyal (2003). Indigenous peoples, biological
diversity and protected area management – policy framework towards resolving
conflicts. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology 10(2): 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500309469795
Nowell, K. & P. Jackson
(1996). Wild
Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,
382 pp.
Patterson, B.D., S.M. Kasiki, E. Selempo & R.W.
Kays (2004). Livestock
predation by lions (Panthera leo) and other carnivores on ranches neighbouring Tsavo
National Parks, Kenya. Biological Conservation 119(4):
507–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.01.013
Prasad, D.Y. (2015). A perspective on the
Naxalite insurgency in Jharkhand and Bihar: going beyond the grievance
argument. Master’s Thesis. The Faculty of Graduate and Post Graduate Studies,
University of British Columbia, 55 pp.
Prater, S.H. (1980). The Book of Indian Animals (3rd edition). Bombay Natural History
Society, Bombay, xxii+324 pp.
Press Information Bureau (2019). Naxal
affected Districts, Ministry of Home Affairs [Press release]. Retrieved on 12
April 2022 at https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1562724
QGIS Development Team (2018). QGIS Geographic Information
System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project, Austin, Texas.
https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Accessed on 05 June 2022.
Rajpurohit, K.S. (1999). Child lifting: Wolves in Hazaribagh, India. Ambio 28(2):
162–166.
Rawat, A.S. (2013). Tiger Conservation Plan. Palamau Tiger Reserve, Department of Forest, Environment
and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, 423 pp.
Reading, R.P., H. Mix, B. Lhagvasuren & N. Tseveenmyadag
(1998). The
commercial harvest of wildlife in Dornod Aimag, Mongolia. The Journal of Wildlife Management
62(1): 59–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802264
Saren, P.C., D. Basu & T. Mukherjee (2019). Status survey of Indian Grey
Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes)
in West Bengal and some part of Jharkhand. Records of the Zoological
Survey of India 119(2): 103–110.
Shahi, S.P. (1982). Report of Grey Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes
Sykes) in India-a preliminary survey. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 79(3): 493–502.
Sharma, L.K., T. Mukherjee, P.C. Saren & K. Chandra (2019). Identifying suitable habitat and
corridors for Indian Grey Wolf (Canis lupus
pallipes) in Chotta
Nagpur Plateau and Lower Gangetic Planes: A species with differential
management needs. PloS One 14(4):
e0215019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215019
Stein, A.B., V. Athreya, P. Gerngross, G. Balme, P. Henschel, U. Karanth,
D. Miquelle, S. Rostro-Garcia, J.F. Kamler, A. Laguardia, I. Khorozyan & A. Ghoddousi
(2020). Panthera pardus
(Amended Version of 2019 Assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: e.T15954A163991139. Accessed on 06 April 2022. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T15954A50659089.en
Suryawanshi, K.R., Y.V. Bhatnagar, S. Redpath & C. Mishra (2013). People, predators and
perceptions: patterns of livestock depredation by Snow Leopards and
Wolves. Journal of Applied Ecology 50(3): 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12061
Terborgh, J. & C.A. Peres (2002). The problem of people in parks,
pp. 307–318. In: Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical
Nature. Island Press, Washington DC.
Thirgood, S., R. Woodroffe & A. Rabinowitz (2005). The Impact of Human Wildlife
Conflict on Human Lives and Livelihoods, pp. 13–26. In: Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood, & A. Rabinowitz (eds.). People and Wildlife:
Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 477 pp.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614774.003
Treves, A., R.R. Jurewicz, L. Naughton-Treves, R.A. Rose, R.C. Willging & A.P. Wydeven
(2002). Wolf
depredation on domestic animals in Wisconsin, 1976-2000. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 30(1): 231–241.
Treves, A., R. Wallace, L.
Naughton-Treves & A. Morales (2006). Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts:
a review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11: 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200600984265