Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2023 | 15(8): 23653–23661
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8481.15.8.23653-23661
#8481 | Received 15
April 2023 | Final received 03 July 2023 | Finally accepted 25 July 2023
Camera trap surveys reveal a
wildlife haven: mammal communities in a tropical forest adjacent to a coal
mining landscape in India
Nimain Charan
Palei 1 , Bhakta Padarbinda Rath 2,
Himanshu Shekhar Palei
3 & Arun
Kumar Mishra 4
1,2 Office of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha, Prakruti Bhawan, Plot No. 1459,
Green Park Nursery, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 751007, India.
3 Aranya Foundation, Bhubaneswar, Odisha,
751019, India.
4 Office of the Regional Chief
Conservator, Rourkela, Sundargarh, Odisha, 769004,
India.
1 wildpalei@gmail.com, 2 bhaktaprath@gmail.com,
3 himanshu.palei@gmail.com (corresponding author),
Editor: H.N. Kumara, Salim
Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore, India. Date of publication: 26 August
2023 (online & print)
Citation: Palei, N.C., B.P. Rath,
H.S. Palei & A.K. Mishra (2023). Camera trap
surveys reveal a wildlife haven: mammal communities in a tropical forest
adjacent to a coal mining landscape in India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(8):
23653–23661. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8481.15.8.23653-23661
Copyright: © Palei et al. 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: Forest Department, Government of Odisha, India.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Nimain Charan Palei (NCP) is studying human-elephant coexistence management and implementation of corridor management for safe passage of elephants between fragmented habitats. For the past 10 years he has been studying elephant migration in Odisha. His research interest’s ecology wild animal, population dynamics, human-wildlife conflict, camera trapping, photography, and videography of wildlife. Bhakta Padarbinda Rath
(BPR) is working as a wildlife researcher in Odisha State since 03.07.2009. He is consistently working for conservation of wildlife and its habitat, studying the missing link between fragmented habitats and their distribution, migration, and movement pattern of wild animals in the state of Odisha. Himanshu Shekhar Palei (HSP) is a wildlife conservationist interested in quantitative ecology analysis, human-wildlife conflict and wildlife habitat mapping. Arun Kumar Mishra (AKM)
is a senior Indian Forest Service Officer and currently working as Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Rourkela, Odisha. He is very concern on conservation of forest, wildlife, and natural habitat at sustainable utilization of natural resources.
Author contributions: NCP—developed the study concept, field data collection, and manuscript writing; BPR—conducted field survey, camera trapping and provided feedback to the final manuscript, HSP- Analysed the data and manuscript writing, AKM—developed the study concept, provided feedback to the final manuscript and supervised the project. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgements: We are grateful to the forest
staff of the Sundargarh Forest Division, for their
continuous support in fieldwork. We are deeply indebted to the P.C.C.F
(Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha for their encouragement to carry
out the research work.
Abstract: Having knowledge of the status
and distribution of species in a specific geographic area is crucial for
creating efficient conservation strategies. In this study, we evaluated the
abundance and diversity of medium- to large-sized mammals in a tropical forest
in India that has been adjacent to a coal mining landscape. Using camera traps
between June and December 2018, we recorded 27 mammal species over 3,432
trap-nights in 81 camera trap stations in the study area. The photo-captured
species included Tiger Panthera tigris, Leopard P. pardus,
Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus,
Asian Elephant Elephas maximus, Gaur Bos gaurus,
Indian Pangolin Manis crassicaudata, and
Four-horned Antelope Tetracerus quadricornis. Wild Boar Sus
scrofa was found to be the most frequently
photo-captured and widespread species. Our study provides data on the species
inventory and the relative abundance of species in the area, highlighting its
significance for mammal conservation. It emphasizes the need for effective
management strategies to protect the remaining forest fragments around mining
or highly operated areas having a high diversity of mammals.
Keywords: Occurrence, Odisha, Panthera tigris,
population, relative abundance index, Sundargarh
Forest Division, threatened species.
INTRODUCTION
Mammals play a crucial role in the
functioning of forest ecosystems. They interact with other biotic and abiotic
components of the forest, influencing nutrient cycling, seed dispersal, and
plant growth (Lacher et al. 2019). Mammals can also
act as apex predators, regulating the populations and behavior
of their prey, which can impact the structure and composition of the forest
community (Ripple et al. 2014). Despite their vital role in forest ecosystems,
they face a multitude of threats that can significantly impact their
populations. Habitat destruction and fragmentation due to human activities such
as deforestation, mining, and urbanization are some of the most significant
threats to mammal communities in the world (Ripple et al. 2014, 2015; Nayak et
al. 2020). Additionally, overhunting and poaching for their meat, hides, or
other body parts are leading to a decline in mammal populations in most parts
of the world (Brodie et al. 2009; Ripple et al. 2016; Rija
et al. 2020). Therefore, it is essential to monitor the presence of mammal
species in their habitat, as this is critical for the development of effective
conservation management strategies (Nichols & Williams 2006).
Several important tools are
available for monitoring mammal populations including camera trap, DNA
analysis, radio telemetry, acoustic monitoring, satellite tracking, and transect
surveys, which provide valuable data on their distribution, abundance,
movement, and behavior (Buckland et al. 2023).
However, camera traps are increasingly widely used tools for monitoring the
mammal populations as they provide non-invasive and accurate data on their
presence, behavior, and abundance (O’Connell et al.
2010; Forrester et al. 2016). In India, several camera trap studies have been
conducted to assess mammal diversity in various ecosystems (Sathyakumar
et al. 2011; Palei et al. 2016; Singh & Macdonald
2017; Lahkar et al. 2018; Rege
et al. 2020; Ahmed et al. 2021; Chakraborty et al. 2021; Pal et al. 2021).
Camera trap studies have the potential to explore not only species inventories
and diversity of mammals but also to examine population size and density (Karanth 1995; Jhala et al. 2008;
Singh & Macdonald 2017), demographic structure (Gardner et al. 2010; Harmsen et al. 2017), habitat utilization (Ramesh et al.
2012; Srivathsa et al. 2017), as well as spatio-temporal activity patterns (Ramesh et al. 2012; Palei et al. 2021).
As one of the mega-biodiverse
countries, India is home to ~427 extant mammal species, representing about 8%
of the world’s mammal diversity (Srinivasulu 2018).
However, large-scale modifications due to the growing human population and
rapid economic growth have transformed the natural habitats into irregular
mosaics among human-dominated spaces. The central Indian landscape with rich
biodiversity, is currently facing significant habitat loss and fragmentation.
This region has experienced rapid environmental changes due to the expansion of
mining and agricultural activities since the 18th century (Soni 2020). The wildlife in these fragmented areas outside
protected areas is relatively unexplored and yet important for conservation.
Several studies have revealed that these remaining forest fragments contain
high diversity of mammals, including threatened species (Rege
et al. 2020; Ahmed et al. 2021; Chakraborty et al. 2021). Therefore,
understanding the conservation status of mammal communities in these areas is
crucial for conservation management strategies.
In this study, we used camera-trap
surveys to study the presence of large- and medium-sized mammals on the northwestern periphery of Odisha State. We focused in a
multiuse forest landscape of Sundargarh forest
division with a strong presence of human and mining activities in the
surrounding and inside forest. Our aim was to create a species inventory and
evaluate the relative abundance of species to determine the potential significance
of this area for conservation purposes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study area
The study area covers an area of
450 km2 and is located between 21.7752–22.0603 0N &
83.5445–83.8490 0E (Figure 1). It is situated in the southern part
of the Sundargarh Forest Division of Odisha State,
India, and includes reserved forests (RF) and protected forests (PF), such as Dhanubaunsha RF, Garjanpahar RF, Chhengapahar RF, Garjanjor RF,
Rohini RF, Barghumra RF, Kanthidungri
PF, and Kharudaldali PF. The western part of the
study area is connected to Chhattisgarh State. The vegetation of the area is
represented by tropical dry deciduous, northern tropical dry deciduous and
northern dry mixed deciduous forest (Champion & Seth 1968). The mean
minimum and maximum temperature varies 6–20 °C in January and 35–45 °C in May.
The mean annual rainfall is 1,100–1,500 mm during the monsoon between June and
September. Most villagers residing in the forest fringes are tribal, and their
activities inside the forest are grazing livestock and collection of forest
products (e.g., fodder for livestock, non-timber forest produce, and fuel
wood). The major land-use that have been recorded in this area are forests,
agriculture, habitations, waterbodies, road and railway lines, and open coal
mining area.
Camera trapping
We surveyed mammals using camera
traps during June–December 2018, at 81 camera trap stations in the study area.
At each station, we collected data on geographical coordinates and altitude
using a GPS. Camera-trap stations consisted of one camera trap, strategically
positioned along trails, roads, or river banks in order to optimize the chances
of capturing large- and medium-sized mammals, which have a tendency to move
along linear features (Rasphone et al. 2019; Ouboter et al. 2021; Palei et al.
2021; Widodo et al. 2022). The mean distance between neighboring
cameras was 1.64 ± SD 0.85 km, with placement carefully planned to ensure
maximal geographical coverage. We used automated motion-triggered digital
camera-traps (Cuddeback Model C1; Non-Typical, Inc.,
Green Bay, WI), mounted approximately 30–40 cm above the ground. The cameras
were programmed to take high sensitivity photographs, with a 2 s interval
between consecutive images. We checked camera traps every 15 days to replace
batteries and to clear understory growth, reducing the risk of false triggers
and vegetation obstructing the photographs. We aimed to leave camera traps in
the forest for the 45 days, but due to work schedule conflicts, cameras were
often picked up earlier or later in some locations.
Data analysis
Each photograph was manually
checked to identify the species. Date, time and temperature were noted for each
identified species. To avoid pseudo replication, animal detections were treated
as separate events if they occurred more than 30 min after the previous
photographs, unless individuals were distinguishable by unique pelage patterns,
colors, or different sex/age categories (O’Brien et
al. 2003). Multiple individuals of the same species in one photograph were
counted as a single observation. For each species, we calculated the relative
abundance index (RAI) by dividing the number of independent events by the
number of trap-nights and then multiplying by 100 (O’Brien et al. 2003). We
determined the naïve occupancy for each species by dividing the total number of
sites where the species was trapped by the overall number of sites. To evaluate
the sampling effort, a species accumulation curve was plotted using Vegan
package in R 4.2.2 (Gotelli & Colwell 2001).
RESULTS
The total number of camera trap nights was 3,432 with a
mean of 42 trap nights (SD ± 16.61) per camera trap station. Site-specific
species accumulation curves appeared to be asymptotic, suggesting that sampling
effort was sufficient (Figure 2). We recorded 27 species of mammals belonging
to 17 families in eight orders (Table 1). Carnivora was the most diverse order
with 14 species, followed by Artiodactyla with five,
Rodentia with two, Primates with two, and all other orders with a single
species each. Of the 27 species recorded, eight are threatened (four
‘Endangered’, four ‘Vulnerable’), two are ‘Near Threatened’ and 17 are ‘Least
Concern’ on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2023).
The most abundant mammal in the study area was Wild Boar Sus
scrofa (RAI = 7.34), followed by Indian Hare Lepus
nigricollis (6.63), Four-horned Antelope Tetracerus quadricornis
(4.14), Rhesus Macaque Macaca mulatta (3.67), Jungle Cat Felis
chaus (3.36), and Bengal Sacred Langur Semnopithecus entellus (3.26) (Table 1,
Figure 3). We observed large variations in naïve occupancy estimates for
mammals in the study area (0.01–0.75). The highest naïve occupancy estimates
were for Wild Boar (0.75), followed by Bengal Sacred Langur (0.59), Jungle Cat
(0.47), Rhesus Macaque (0.45), Four-horned Antelope (0.43), and Leopard (0.40)
(Table 1, Figure 4). Throughout the study area, four threatened species were
regularly captured: the Asian Elephant (n = 50, in 19 locations), Four-horned
Antelope (n = 142, in 29 locations), Sloth Bear (n = 61, in 32 locations), and
Leopard (n = 61, in 33 locations) (Table 1).
DISCUSSION
Our study confirms that the study area is home to a
diverse population of terrestrial mammals, including many important and
threatened species such as Tiger, Leopard, Sloth Bear, Asian Elephant, Gaur,
and Indian Pangolin. Our study area exhibits a high diversity of terrestrial
mammals, which becomes evident when compared to camera trap studies conducted
in other parts of India, e.g., 24 mammals over 6,413 trap-nights in 187 camera
trap stations in Similipal Tiger Reserve, Odisha (Palei et al. 2016), 20 mammals over 916 trap-nights in 65
camera trap stations in Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary,
Odisha (Debata & Swain 2018), 24 mammals in 52
camera traps over 660 trap-nights in the Bandhavgarh-Sanjay
Corridor (Vaishnav et al. 2021), and 27 mammals in 123 camera trap locations
over 3,250 trap-nights in Debrigarh Wildlife
Sanctuary, Odisha (Palei et al. 2023).
While photographic capture rates can be a helpful
indicator of relative abundance (Carbone et al. 2001), it may not be directly
comparable between different species due to differences in detectability (Jennelle et al. 2002). As a result, we refrained from
comparing relative abundance across species. However, despite its limitations,
photographic rates can still yield valuable insights into comparing the
relative abundance of specific species across various locations and identifying
general patterns of species richness.
A major finding of our study is the detection of Tiger,
Leopard, and Four-horned Antelope in the study area, as former one is
classified as ‘Endangered’ and latter two as ‘Vulnerable’ by the IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species. In this region, information on the distribution of the
Tiger is limited (Debata & Palei
2020). The presence of tigers in our study area is a positive indication of the
forest’s ecological richness and the region’s potential for tiger conservation.
The study area is connected to central Indian tiger landscape, which is home to
a substantial population of tigers (Jhala et al.
2008). This connectivity provides opportunities for the long-term survival
prospects of tigers in the region. Although leopards are widely distributed
throughout the state, their vulnerability to poaching is a real concern across
the state and the country (Mondol et al. 2015). In
Odisha, the Four-horned Antelope is considered rare and was only reported 20
years ago from the Similipal Tiger Reserve (Singh
& Swain 2003). The presence of these threatened species in this human
dominated landscape emphasizes the need for regular monitoring of them and
their habitat.
Our study shows widespread presence of Sloth Bears and
Asian Elephants, which may result in an escalation of human-wildlife
interactions. Sloth Bears are known for raiding crops and can become aggressive
towards humans if they perceive a threat (Debata et
al. 2017; Delgado et al. 2020), while Asian Elephants can cause significant
damage to crops and property, and can also pose a serious threat to human life
(Palei et al. 2017, 2019). Therefore, it is crucial
to develop effective management strategies to mitigate human-wildlife negative
interactions for the region.
Within the study area, a coal mine is present along with
transportation networks that bisect the forest, including railways and roads.
Additionally, there are proposed coal mine projects or expansions that have the
potential to further degrade the forest (CIRTD & CPR 2020). Large mammals,
such as Asian Elephants, Tigers, and Gaurs, are particularly vulnerable to
these disturbances as they require large areas and are easily disrupted by
human activities (Ripple et al. 2014, 2015). There have already been negative
consequences, as evidenced by a female elephant being killed in a train
accident within the study area in 2017. Therefore, regular evaluation of the
mammal community in light of surrounding development activities would help to
assess the effectiveness of measures taken to increase protection and restore
habitats.
Table 1. Relative Abundance Index
(RAI) of Wildlife species and others captured photos.
|
|
Species name |
Scientific name |
Food habit |
IUCN Red List status |
CT stations |
Independent record |
RAI |
Naïve occupancy |
|
|
A. ORDER: ARTIODACTYLA |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Family: Cervidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Barking Deer |
Muntiacus muntjac |
H |
LC |
21 |
70 |
2.04 |
0.25 |
|
2 |
Spotted Deer |
Axis axis |
H |
LC |
3 |
8 |
0.23 |
0.03 |
|
|
Family: Suidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
Wild Boar |
Sus scrofa |
H |
LC |
61 |
252 |
7.34 |
0.75 |
|
|
Family: Bovidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Four-horned Antelope |
Tetracerus quadricornis |
H |
VU |
35 |
142 |
4.14 |
0.43 |
|
5 |
Gaur |
Bos gaurus |
H |
VU |
1 |
1 |
0.03 |
0.01 |
|
|
B. ORDER: PROBOSCIDEA |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Family: Elephantidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
Asian Elephant |
Elephas maximus |
H |
EN |
19 |
50 |
1.46 |
0.23 |
|
|
C. ORDER: CARNIVORA |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Family: Ursidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
Sloth Bear |
Melursus ursinus |
O |
VU |
32 |
61 |
1.77 |
0.39 |
|
|
Family: Felidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
Tiger |
Panthera tigris |
C |
EN |
1 |
1 |
0.03 |
0.01 |
|
9 |
Leopard |
Panthera pardus |
C |
VU |
33 |
61 |
1.78 |
0.40 |
|
10 |
Rusty-spotted Cat |
Prionailurus rubiginosus |
C |
NT |
3 |
12 |
0.35 |
0.03 |
|
11 |
Jungle Cat |
Felis chaus |
C |
LC |
38 |
112 |
3.36 |
0.47 |
|
|
Family: Canidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
Indian Wolf |
Canis lupus pallipes |
C |
LC |
6 |
8 |
0.23 |
0.07 |
|
13 |
Golden Jackal |
Canis aureus |
C |
LC |
1 |
2 |
0.06 |
0.01 |
|
14 |
Bengal Fox |
Vulpes bengalensis |
C |
LC |
1 |
2 |
0.06 |
0.01 |
|
|
Family: Hyaenidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
Striped Hyena |
Hyaena hyaena |
C |
NT |
1 |
1 |
0.03 |
0.01 |
|
|
Family: Mustelidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
Ratel |
Mellivora capensis |
C |
LC |
27 |
52 |
1.51 |
0.33 |
|
|
Family: Viverridae
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
Small Indian Civet |
Viverricula indica |
C |
LC |
30 |
56 |
1.63 |
0.37 |
|
18 |
Common Palm Civet |
Paradoxurus hermaphroditus |
O |
LC |
16 |
26 |
0.76 |
0.19 |
|
|
Family: Herpestidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
Ruddy Mongoose |
Urva smithii |
C |
LC |
6 |
61 |
1.78 |
0.07 |
|
20 |
Indian Grey Mongoose |
Urva edwardsii |
C |
LC |
4 |
5 |
0.15 |
0.05 |
|
|
D. ORDER: PRIMATES |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Family: Cercopithecidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
Rhesus Macaque |
Macaca mulatta |
H |
LC |
37 |
126 |
3.67 |
0.45 |
|
22 |
Bengal Sacred Langur |
Semnopithecus entellus |
H |
LC |
48 |
112 |
3.26 |
0.59 |
|
|
E. ORDER: PHOLIDOTA |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Family: Manidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
Indian Pangolin |
Manis crassicaudata |
I |
EN |
2 |
2 |
0.06 |
0.02 |
|
|
F. ORDER: LAGOMORPHA |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Family: Leporidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
Indian Hare |
Lepus nigricollis |
H |
LC |
42 |
224 |
6.53 |
0.51 |
|
|
G. ORDER: RODENTIA |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Family: Hystricidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
Indian Crested Porcupine |
Hystrix indica |
H |
LC |
20 |
30 |
0.87 |
0.24 |
|
|
Family: Sciuridae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
Indian Palm Squirrel |
Funambulus palmarum |
H |
LC |
5 |
14 |
0.41 |
0.06 |
|
|
H. ORDER: SCANDENTIA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family: Tupaiidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
Madras Treeshrew |
Anathana ellioti |
H |
LC |
4 |
6 |
0.17 |
0.05 |
RAI—Relative
Abundance Index | CT—Camera Trap | EN—Endangered | VU—Vulnerable | NT—Near
Threatened | LC—Least Concern | C—Carnivore | H—Herbivore | I—Insectivore |
O—Omnivore.
For
figures & images – click here for full PDF
References
Ahmed, T., H.S. Bargali,
N. Verma & A. Khan (2021). Mammals outside Protected Areas:
Status and response to anthropogenic disturbance in Western Terai-Arc
Landscape. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 74(2): 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-020-00360-4
Brodie, J.F., O.E. Helmy, W.Y.
Brockelman & J.L. Maron (2009). Bushmeat poaching reduces the seed
dispersal and population growth rate of a mammal-dispersed tree. Ecological
Applications 19(4): 854–863. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0955.1
Buckland, S.T., D.L. Borchers, T.A.
Marques & R.M. Fewster (2023). Wildlife population assessment:
changing priorities driven by technological advances. Journal of Statistical
Theory and Practice 17(2): 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42519-023-00319-6
Carbone, C., S. Christie, K. Conforti, T. Coulson, N. Franklin, J.R. Ginsberg, M.
Griffiths, J. Holden, K. Kawanishi, M. Kinnaird, R.
Laidlaw, A. Lynam, D.W. Macdonald, D. Martyr, C.
McDougal, L. Nath, T. O’Brien, J. Seidensticker,
D.J.L. Smith, M. Sunquist, R. Tilson & W.N. Wan Shahruddin (2001). The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other
cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4(1): 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943001001081
Chakraborty, P., J. Borah, P.J.
Bora, S. Dey, T. Sharma, Lalthanpuia
& S. Rongphar (2021). Camera trap-based monitoring of a
key wildlife corridor reveals opportunities and challenges for large mammal
conservation in Assam, India. Tropical Ecology 62(2): 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-020-00138-x
Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth
(1968). A revised survey of the forest
types of India. Government of India, New Delhi, India, 404 pp.
CIRTD & CPR (2020). Closing the Enforcement Gap:
Community-led Ground truthing Study of Environmental Violations in Sundargarh, Odisha. Namati
Environmental & Justice, New Delhi, 83 pp.
Debata, S. & H.S. Palei
(2020). An updated checklist of mammals of
Odisha, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(10): 16219–16229. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6025.12.10.16219-16229
Debata, S. & K.K Swain (2018). Estimating mammalian diversity and
relative abundance using camera traps in a tropical deciduous forest of Kuldiha
Wildlife Sanctuary, eastern
India. Mammal Study 43:
45–53. https://doi.org/10.3106/ms2017-0078
Debata, S., K.K. Swain, H.K. Sahu & H.S. Palei (2017). Human-Sloth Bear conflict in a
human-dominated landscape of northern Odisha, India. Ursus
27(2): 90–98. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-16-00007.1
Delgado, M., T. Sharp, V. Penteriani, G. Bombieri, H.S. Bargali, N. Dharaiya, A.K. Jangid, R.K. Sharma, B.R. Lamichahane,
S. Ratnayeke, I. Seryodkin,
H.S. Palei, A. Subedi, H. Ambarli, J.M. Fedriani, P.J. Garrote, K. Jerina, I. Kojola, M. Krofel, P. Mardaraj, M. Melletti, A. Ordiz, P. Pedrini, E. Revilla,
L.F. Russo, V. Sahlen, C. Servheen,
O-G Støen, J.E. Swenson & T. Smith (2020). Patterns of Bear Attacks on
Humans, Factors Triggering Risky Scenarios, and How to Reduce Them pp. 239–249.
In: Penteriani, V. & M. Melletti
(eds.). Bears of the World: Ecology, Conservation and Management.
Cambridge University Press, 406 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108692571.018
Forrester, T., T. O’Brien, E. Fegraus, P.A. Jansen, J. Palmer, R. Kays, J. Ahumada, B. Stern & W. McShea
(2016). An open standard for camera trap
data. Biodiversity Data Journal 4(4): e10197. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e10197
Gardner, B.,
J. Reppucci, M. Lucherini
& J.A. Royle (2010). Spatially explicit inference for
open populations: estimating demographic parameters from camera-trap studies. Ecology
91(11): 3376–3383. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0804.1
Gotelli, N.J. & R.K. Colwell (2001). Quantifying biodiversity:
procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology
Letters 4(4): 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x
Harmsen, B.J., R.J. Foster, E. Sanchez,
C.E. Gutierrez-González, S.C. Silver, L.E. Ostro,
M.J. Kelly, E. Kay & H. Quigley (2017). Long term monitoring of jaguars in the Cockscomb Basin
Wildlife Sanctuary, Belize; Implications for camera trap studies of carnivores.
PLoS One12(6): e0179505. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179505
IUCN (2023). The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2020-1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Jennelle, C.S., M.C. Runge & D.I. MacKenzie
(2002). The use of photographic rates to
estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: a comment on misleading
conclusions. Animal Conservation 5(2): 119–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943002002160
Jhala, Y.V., R. Gopal & Q. Qureshi
(2008). Status of tigers, co-predators and
prey in India by National Tiger Conservation Authority and Wildlife Institute
of India. TR08/001, 164 pp.
Karanth, K.U. (1995). Estimating Tiger Panthera tigris
populations from camera-trap data using capture—recapture models. Biological
Conservation 71(3): 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)00057-W
Lacher, T.E., A.D. Davidson, T.H.
Fleming, E.P. Gómez-Ruiz, G.F. McCracken, N. Owen-Smith, C.A. Peres &
S.B.V. Wall (2019). The functional
roles of mammals in ecosystems. Journal of Mammalogy 100(3): 942–964. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyy183
Lahkar, D., M.F. Ahmed, R.H. Begum, S.K.
Das, B.P. Lahkar, H.K. Sarma
& A. Harihar (2018).
Camera-trapping survey to assess diversity, distribution and photographic
capture rate of terrestrial mammals in the aftermath of the ethnopolitical
conflict in Manas National Park, Assam, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 10(8): 12008–12017. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4039.10.8.12008-12017
Mondol, S., V. Sridhar, P. Yadav, S.
Gubbi & U. Ramakrishnan (2015). Tracing the geographic origin of traded leopard body parts in the indian subcontinent with DNA-based assignment tests. Conservation
Biology 29(2): 556–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12393
Nayak, R., K.K. Karanth,
T. Dutta, R. Defries, K.U. Karanth
& S. Vaidyanathan (2020). Bits and pieces: Forest fragmentation by linear intrusions in India. Land
Use Policy 99: 104619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104619
Nichols, J. & B. Williams
(2006). Monitoring for conservation. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution 21(12): 668–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.007
O’Brien, T.G., M.F. Kinnaird &
H.T. Wibisono (2003). Crouching tigers, hidden prey:
Sumatran Tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal
Conservation 6(2): 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943003003172
O’Connell, A.F., J.D. Nichols &
K.U. Karanth (2010). Camera traps in animal ecology:
methods and analyses. Springer, Tokyo, 271 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-99495-4
Ouboter, D.A., V.S. Kadosoe
& P.E. Ouboter (2021). Impact of ecotourism on abundance,
diversity and activity patterns of medium-large terrestrial mammals at Brownsberg Nature Park, Suriname. PLoS
One 16(6): e0250390. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250390
Pal, R., S. Thakur, S. Arya, T.
Bhattacharya & S. Sathyakumar (2021). Mammals of the Bhagirathi basin,
Western Himalaya: Understanding distribution along spatial gradients of
habitats and disturbances. Oryx 55(5): 657–667. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001352
Palei, H.S., T. Pradhan, H.K. Sahu & A.K. Nayak (2016). Estimating mammalian abundance
using camera traps in the tropical forest of Similipal
Tiger Reserve, Odisha, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society
69(2): 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-015-0143-x
Palei, H.S., T. Pradhan, H.K. Sahu & A.K. Nayak (2021). Diet and activity pattern of
leopard in relation to prey in tropical forest ecosystem. Mammalia
86(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2021-0003
Palei, N.C., L.A.K. Singh & H.K. Sahu (2019). Elephant Movement and its Impacts: Conservation Management in Odisha,
India: Case Study. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Beau Bassin,
Mauritius, 395 pp.
Palei, N.C., H.S. Palei,
L.A.K. Singh & H.K. Sahu (2017). Troublesome visitors:
Human-Elephant conflict by elephants coming into Odisha from Chhattisgarh. Gajah
47: 36–39.
Palei, N.C., B.P. Rath
& S. Nayak (2023). Mammalian
diversity of Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(4): 23005–23015. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7337.15.4.23005-23015
Ramesh, T., R. Kalle,
K. Sankar & Q. Qureshi (2012). Spatio-temporal partitioning among large
carnivores in relation to major prey species in Western Ghats. Journal of
Zoology 287: 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2012.00908.x
Ramesh, T., R. Kalle,
K. Sankar & Q. Qureshi (2012). Factors affecting habitat patch
use by Sloth Bears in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve,
Western Ghats, India. Ursus 23(1): 78–85. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-11-00006.1
Rasphone, A., M. Kéry,
J.F. Kamler & D.W. Macdonald (2019). Documenting the demise of tiger
and leopard, and the status of other carnivores and prey, in Lao PDR’s most
prized protected area: Nam Et - Phou Louey. Global
Ecology and Conservation 20: e00766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00766
Rege, A., G.A. Punjabi, D. Jathanna & A. Kumar (2020). Mammals make use of cashew
plantations in a mixed forest–cashew landscape. Frontiers in Environmental
Science 8: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.556942
Rija, A.A., R. Critchlow, C.D. Thomas
& C.M. Beale (2020). Global extent
and drivers of mammal population declines in protected areas under illegal
hunting pressure. PLoS One 15(8):
e0227163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227163
Ripple, W.J., K. Abernethy, M.G.
Betts, G. Chapron, R. Dirzo,
M. Galetti, T. Levi, P.A. Lindsey, D.W. Macdonald, B.
Machovina, T.M. Newsome, C.A. Peres, A.D. Wallach, C.
Wolf & H. Young (2016). Bushmeat
hunting and extinction risk to the world’s mammals. Royal Society Open
Science 3(10): 160498. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160498
Ripple, W.J., J.A. Estes, R.L. Beschta, C.C. Wilmers, E.G.
Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen, M. Letnic, M.P. Nelson,
O.J. Schmitz, D.W. Smith, A.D. Wallach & A.J. Wirsing
(2014). Status and ecological effects of
the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343(6167): 1241484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484
Ripple, W.J., T.M. Newsome, C.
Wolf, R. Dirzo, K.T. Everatt,
M. Galetti, M.T. Hayward, G.I.H. Kerley, T. Levi,
P.A. Lindsey, D.W. Macdonald, Y. Malhi, L.E. Painter,
C.J. Sandom, J. Terborgh
& B. Van Valkenburgh (2015). Collapse of the world’s largest
herbivores. Science Advances 1: e1400103. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400103
Sathyakumar, S., T. Bashir, T. Bhattacharya
& K. Poudyal (2011). Assessing mammal distribution and
abundance in intricate eastern Himalayan habitats of Khangchendzonga,
Sikkim, India. Mammalia 75(3): 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.2011.023
Singh, L.A.K. & D. Swain
(2003). The Four-horned Antelope or Chousingha (Tetraceros quadricornis) in Similipal. Zoos’
Print Journal 18(9): 1197–1198. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.18.9.1197-8
Singh, P. & D.W. Macdonald
(2017). Populations and activity patterns
of Clouded Leopards and Marbled Cats in Dampa Tiger
Reserve, India. Journal of Mammalogy 98(5): 1453–1462. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyx104
Soni, A.K. (2020). History of Mining in India. Indian
Journal of History of Science 55(3): 218–234. https://doi.org/10.16943/ijhs/2020/v55i3/156955
Srinivasulu, C. (2018). South Asian mammals: an updated
checklist and their scientific names. CRC Press, 374 pp.
Srivathsa, A., N.S. Kumar & K.U. Karanth (2017). Field report home range size of the Dhole estimated from camera- trap
surveys. Canid Biology and Conservation 20(1): 1–4.
Vaishnav, T., S. Kumar & K.
Gore (2021). A Study of
species diversity, abundance and occupancy of mammal community in Bandhavgarh-Sanjay corridor in the central. Journal of
Bioresources 8(1): 52–64. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P9UJ8
Widodo, F.A., M.A. Imron, S. Sunarto & A.J. Giordano (2022). Carnivores and their prey in
Sumatra: Occupancy and activity in human-dominated forests. PLoS
One 17: 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265440