JODHPUR CLOSED AREAS_FINAL REPORT_MARCH 2015

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ERSTWHILE

CLOSED AREAS OF JODHPUR DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN

TECHNICAL REPORT

FUNDED BY

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION TRUST (WCT) THROUGH RPACS

MARCH 2015

PROJECT ADVISORS

DR. G.V. REDDY, APCCF (PF&C), DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS,

GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

MR. M. S. RATHORE, DCF (WL), JODHPUR, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS,

GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

PROJECT FUNDED BY

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION TRUST (WCT), MUMBAI THROUGH

RAJASTHAN PROTECTED AREAS CONSERVATION SOCIETY (RPACS),

JAIPUR

WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS IN SURVEY TEAM

MR. SUBHADEEP BHATTACHARJEE (PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR)

MRS. ZAARA KIDWAI

MR. SANTOSH BHATTARAI

MR. HEMANT BAJPAI

PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED WITH ECOLOGICAL SURVEY FROM FOREST

DEPARTMENT, JODHPUR (WILDLIFE WING)

Kishan Singh Arha (Range Officer), Sagar Ram Bishnoi, Praveen Kumar, Kaluram

Bishnoi, Bhagirath Latiyal, Ramkaran Jat, Shravan Kumar, Hariram Jat, Sajjan Singh,

Bhuraram Bishnoi, Babulal Jat, Bachan Singh, Lal Bharti, Ganga Singh, Tej Singh

and Prakash Sirwi

CITATION

Bhattacharjee, S., Kidwai, Z., Bhattarai, S., Bajpai, H., Rathore, M.S. and Reddy, G.V.

2015. Ecological assessment of the erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur district,

Rajasthan. Technical report, March 2015, submitted to Department of Forests,

Government of Rajasthan. pp – 87.

ii

CONTENTS

PAGE NO

CONTENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF ANNEXURE vi

ACKNOWLEGEMENT viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix - xiii

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1-5

2. OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................. 6

3. STUDY AREA................................................................................................. 7 - 12

4. METHODOLOGY......................................................................................... 13 – 21

5. RESULTS......................................................................................................... 22 – 60

6. DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 61 – 68

7. LITERATURE CITED.................................................................................... 69 – 71

8. ANNEXURE.................................................................................................... 72 – 87

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

no. Details

Page

no.

1 Location, geographical area and habitat type of all the erstwhile closed areas in

Rajasthan state 3

2 The approximate geographical areas of the six erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur

district 7

3

Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major

herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Guda Bishnoiyan – Fitkashni of Jodhpur

district

27

4 Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major

herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Sathin of Jodhpur district 28


herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Jamba of Jodhpur district 29


herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Lohawat of Jodhpur district 30


herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Dechu of Jodhpur district 31


herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Doli-Dhawa of Jodhpur district 32


herbivore species in all erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district 33

10 Estimated tree density on 10m x 10m quadrat at every 200m interval on each line

transect in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur 46

11 Estimated shrub density on 5m x 5m quadrat at every 200m interval on each line

transect in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur 47

12 Estimated species richness and diversity index for the tree layers analyzed by

program Estimate S in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur 48

13 Estimated species richness and diversity index for the shrub layers analyzed by

program Estimate S in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur 48

14 Estimated importance value index (IVI) for the tree layers analyzed by program

Estimate S across all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur 49

15 Official census results (water hole count) of wildlife carried out by the wildlife

division of Jodhpur district during last 20 years 67

16

Official records of the rescued injured wildlife (mainly herbivores) and their

subsequent fate after treatment by the wildlife division of Jodhpur district during

last seven years

68

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

no. Details

Page

no.

1 The geographical locations of the six erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur district 8

2 The locations of line transects laid and walked in all the erstwhile closed areas of

Jodhpur district 14

3 Comparative individual densities (Di ± SE) of different mammalian herbivores

(wild and domestic) across different study sites and overall study area 26

4

Detection probability curve of blackbuck generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software

as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-

February 2015.

34

5

Detection probability curve of chinkara generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as

studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February

2015.

34

6

Detection probability curve of nilgai generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as


2015.

35

7

Detection probability curve of peafowl generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as


2015.

35

8

Detection probability curve of grey francolin generated by DISTANCE 6.0

software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during

January-February 2015.

36

9

Detection probability curve of domestic buffalo generated by DISTANCE 6.0



36

10

Detection probability curve of cattle generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as


2015.

37

11

Detection probability curve of domestic goat generated by DISTANCE 6.0



37

12

Detection probability curve of sheep generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as


2015.

38

v

13

Detection probability curve of camel generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as


2015.

38

14 Distribution map of blackbuck as per line transect record in all the erstwhile

closed areas of Jodhpur district 39

15 Distribution map of chinkara as per line transect record in all the erstwhile


16 Distribution map of nilgai as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed

areas of Jodhpur district 41

17 Distribution map of peafowl as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed

areas of Jodhpur district 42

18 Distribution map of grey francolin as per line transect record in all the erstwhile


19 Distribution map of domestic livestock as per line transect record in all the

erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district 44

20 Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of status of oran across the

entire study area of Jodhpur district 55

21 Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of status of wildlife across

the entire study area of Jodhpur district 55

22 Estimated percentage response pattern on the reasons of wildlife depletion

across the entire study area of Jodhpur district 56

23 Estimated percentage response pattern on the reasons of wildlife rejuvenation


24 Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of crop-raiding by wild

herbivores across the entire study area of Jodhpur district 57

25 Estimated percentage response pattern on the legal status of erstwhile closed

areas in Jodhpur 57

26 Estimated percentage response pattern on the decline of major wildlife species


27 Estimated percentage response pattern on the major problematic wildlife species


28 Estimated percentage response pattern on the reaction time in wildlife rescue


29 Estimated percentage response pattern on the initiatives of eco-tourism in

community conservation areas across the entire study area of Jodhpur district 59

30 Estimated percentage response pattern on the relationship between forest

department and local community across the entire study area of Jodhpur district 60

vi

LIST OF ANNEXURE

S. No. Anexxure

no. Details

Page

no.

1 I Map 1. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the

study area (Banks) 72


study area (Electricity structures) 72


study area (Forest Department structures) 73


study area (Health Facilities) 73


study area (Panchayat Facilities) 74


study area (Police stations) 74


study area (Post Offices) 75


study area (Railway station) 75


study area (Religious places) 76


study area (Education facilities) 76


study area (water sources) 77

12 II Plate 1. Bachelor herd of Black buck at Dhawa 78

13 II Plate 2. Female black buck at a water body in Guda 78

14 II Plate 3. Chinkara female with young ones at Sathin 78

15 II Plate 4. Male Chinkara in Bhakari Lohawat 78

16 II Plate 5. Nilgai herd spotted at Dhawa 79

17 II Plate 6. Female Nilgai in Dechu 79

18 II Plate 7. Pigs spotted at Dhawa 79

19 II Plate 8. Single Pig in Sathin 79

20 II Plate 9. Desert fox in Jamba 80

vii

21 II Plate 10. Desert fox in Sathin 80

22 II Plate 11. Golden jackal in Fitkashini Guda 80

23 II Plate 12. Golden jackal in Dhawa 80

24 II Plate 13. Desert gerbil in Dechu 80

25 II Plate 14. Desert gerbil Dhawa 80

26 II Plate 15. Demoiselle crane at a water body near Guda 81

27 II Plate 16. Long-legged buzzard spotted at Sathin 81

28 II Plate 17. Black crowned sparrow lark at Lohawat 81

29 II Plate 18. Lesser flamingo at Dhawa 81

30 II Plate 19. Shikra spotted in Lohawat 81

31 II Plate 20. Cinereous vulture and Eurasian griffon in Jamba 81

32 II Plate 21. Bhakad (hills) of Phinch village in Dhawa Closed area 82

33 II Plate 22. Rohida habitat (Tecomella undulata) near Chichadli village

in Dhawa Closed area 82

34 II Plate 23. Hilly habitat near Rathkuria village in Sathin Closed area 82

35 II Plate 24. Oran (Community land) of Rudekli village in Guda

Closed area 82

36 II Plate 24. Questionnaire survey in Dhawa 83

37 II Plate 25. Questionnaire survey in Jamba 83

38 II Plate 26. Questionnaire survey in Guda 83

39 II Plate 27. Questionnaire survey in Sathin 83

40 III Data Sheet for Distance Sampling of Prey Species on Line transect

(Data sheet no: 01 / Closed areas / GOR) 84

41 III

Vegetation and disturbance data sheet on a quadrat of 10M x 10M

at every 200M of each line transect (Data sheet no: 02 / Closed

areas / GOR)

85

42 III

Questionnaire Survey to assess Ecological Status of the erstwhile

Closed Areas of the district of Jodhpur, Rajasthan (To be carried

out among 2% population of each village)

86

43 III

Factual data sheet for GPS locations and descriptions of the

geographical features in each village of Closed areas in Jodhpur

(Data Sheet no: 03 / Closed areas / GOR) 87

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project was financially supported by Wildlife Conservation Trust (WCT), Mumbai

through Rajasthan Protected Area Conservation Society (RPACS), Jaipur, Rajasthan for

which we are highly indebted and thankful. As an organization, WCT has shown great

interest in conservation of wildlife which are surviving outside protected areas (PAs) as

well such as in the erstwhile closed areas of Rajasthan. We greatly appreciate such

involvement and initiatives from WCT. We express sincere gratitude to both the project

advisors Dr. G.V. Reddy, APCCF (PF&C) and Mr. M.S. Rathore, D.C.F. Jodhpur (WL)

for guiding and helping us at every stage of the project. We hereby also thank Dr. G.S.

Bhardwaj, CCF Jodhpur (WL) for his cooperation to complete the work conveniently.

We are thankful to Mr. Sangram Singh Katihar, DFO and Mr. Bhagwan Singh, ACF for

their encouragement to this project. Mr. Kishan Singh Arha, Range Officer, Jodhpur

(WL) is especially thanked for all his efforts to organize the logistic support to conduct

this study successfully. We are also grateful to Dr. Mrs. Fatima Sultana, Coordinator,

Department of Wildlife Science, University of Kota, Kota for sharing the sampling

equipment to facilitate the field data collection. All the front line staff of Jodhpur (WL)

division and their family members who helped us in this study are also heartily

thanked for their great hospitality. Finally, we earnestly thank all our family members

and friends who support us in every moment and always sacrifice their happiness by

letting us work for wildlife conservation staying continuously in remote areas.

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the field of wildlife research, conservation and management practices, protected

areas (PAs) are thought to be the cornerstone of all these activities. The protected areas

in India consist of four categories: National Parks (NP) and Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLS)

are the two major categories while Community Conservation Reserves (CCR) and

Conservation Reserves (CR) are the two newly created categories. Rajasthan state has

two National Parks (Keoladeo and Ranthambhore), 25 Wildlife Sanctuaries and four

Conservation Reserves covering total 9485.46 sq. km of land which is roughly about

29% of total forest area or about 2.77% of geographical land under protected areas. The

distribution of these protected areas is rather skewed, most of them are confined to east

of Aravalli Hill range with exception of Desert National Park (Jaisalmer) and Tal

Chhapper (Churu) on the western side of the state.

Until 2002 amendment of Wildlife Protection Act (WPA 1972), Rajasthan had a unique

category of protected area viz. Closed Area (CA). The closed areas were wildlife rich

areas, declared under section 37 of WPA 1972 to provide protection to mega-fauna of

that place during their breeding season. During 1980’s Rajasthan state government had

notified about 14,689.71 sq. km of geographical land by marking 33 Closed Areas (CA)

in 17 districts to forbid hunting during the breeding season of the wild ungulates. Out

of these 33 CAs, 25 are located in the western part of Rajasthan in contrary to the

locations of the conventional PAs which are mostly confined to eastern part of the state.

x

There were six closed areas situated in Jodhpur district such as Guda Bishnoiyan -

Fitkashni, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa which cover 98 villages in

total. The 2002 WPA amendment, prohibited hunting throughout the country

irrespective of the season, thus rendering section 37 redundant which was subsequently

repealed.

Along with the lost legal status, these areas are data deficient on conservation values,

scientifically estimated population parameters of major wildlife species with no proper

assessment of perception of the local communities towards conservation initiatives.

Therefore, it was urgent to understand ecological status of these closed areas, so that

efforts can be delivered to convert potential closed areas into CR or CCR. The present

study is a preliminary scientific base line survey conducted in short period (two

months) to understand the abundance, distribution of the herbivores (wild and

domestic) using distance sampling based line transects, vegetation quadrats to evaluate

their habitat conditions and questionnaire surveys to assess the perception of local

communities towards wildlife conservation and management strategies.

A total effort of 1461 km on 130 line transects resulting in a total of 390 walks or

temporal replicates was delivered to estimate the abundance of prey species (wild and

domestic). Simultaneously 2515 habitat plots were also sampled to estimate the density,

diversity, richness and dominance of the vegetation layers (tree and shrub layers). In

total, 13 potential prey species were recorded on line transects. These were four wild

xi

ungulate species (blackbuck, chinkara, nilgai and wild pig), two small mammal (Indian

rufous tailed hare and Indian desert hare), five domestic livestock (cattle, buffalo, goat,

sheep and Indian camel) and two birds (peafowl and grey francolin). We have also

recorded the information on four wild canid species such as Indian grey wolf, golden

jackal, Indian fox and desert fox during the transect walks.

Chinkara was estimated as most abundant with highest density (Di ± SE) as 7.51 ± 0.96

individuals km-2 and an abundance of 29, 070 ± 3716 individuals for the entire study

area (3870.93 km2). Similarly, the individual density (Di ± SE) with an individual

abundance (N) for the entire study area were estimated as 2.08 ± 0.64 km-2; 8052 ± 2477

and 2.11 ± 0.41 km-2; 8167 ± 1587 for blackbuck and nilgai respectively. The estimated

individual density (Di ± SE) summated for all the domestic livestock (cattle, buffalo,

goat, sheep and camel) for overall study area was much higher as 95 km-2 with an

estimated abundance (N) of nearly 3, 66, 197 individuals.

The density of tree and shrub layer in the study area is ecologically very low due to the

aridity. A total of 16 species of trees and 13 species of shrubs were recorded during the

vegetation sampling across the entire study area. The estimated mean densities were

50.26 ± 9.96 SE ha-1 and 343.88 ± 10.48 SE ha-1 for tree and shrub layer respectively while

the mean diversity value was found to be higher for trees (18.3 ± 0.003 SE) compared to

shrubs (13.6 ± 0.005 SE). The mean richness of tree and shrub layers were estimated as

16 ± 0.008 SE and 13 ± 0.014 SE respectively. Prosopis cineraria was found with highest

xii

IVI value (96.84) for the entire study area whereas for Balanites roxburghii, the IVI value

came out to be the lowest (0.17).

The exact geographic boundaries of all the 98 villages which constituted the six

erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur were not available with the forest department during

their notification period in early 1980’s. Therefore, during this survey we recorded the

latitude and longitude of different important landmarks from all the villages to prepare

GIS maps with each geographical landmark recorded across the entire study area.

A total of 3366 people of age above 18 years from 2470 households were interviewed of

which 2984 (88.7%) were male and 382 (11.3%) were female respondents. More than

60% respondents in the entire study area opined that the oran (community land) around

their villages became degraded than past. Similarly around 70% interviewees from the

entire study area replied that status of wildlife abundance got deteriorated during the

past decade when 57% of the total interviewees blamed illegal hunting of the wildlife as

the main reason for such deterioration. Habitat destruction, landscape fragmentation

due to agricultural advancements and occasional accidents were the other reasons

stated by rest of the people. In response to the issue of crop-raiding incidences by the

wild herbivores, 88.5% interviewees expressed their disappointment over it as a

nuisance. Forty two percent of the total interviewees reported Indian grey wolf missing

from their localities during the last decade while 40% respondents described vultures as

xiii

the most susceptible species towards local extinction. Overall 42.8% respondents replied

pigs as most malicious animal while 38% reported nilgai as most problematical animal

towards crop production. More than 50% interviewees in the entire study area opposed

the ideas of eco-tourism initiatives as they feared that such activities might take away

the grazing land of their domestic livestock while around 31% of the total respondents

had agreed and welcome such opportunities to increase their livelihood options.

Majority (around 57%) of the respondents across the entire study area expressed their

dissatisfaction regarding their relation with forest department stating that they did not

have any interactions with the local forest department authorities.

Therefore, the forest department should organize periodic conservation awareness

camps involving all the target groups (adult male, students and ladies) from the local

communities and start dialogue process with them to conserve the potential habitats

(community lands) and the existing wildlife under proper legal framework of CR or

CCR. Recruitment of more personnel should be carried out to rectify the inadequacy of

front line staff in administrative system. The rural areas in this district are getting

converted to urban colonies at a fast pace and is affecting the survival of wild ungulates

in these erstwhile closed areas. Thus, a detailed long term follow up study has to be

carried out to understand the effect of habitat parameters and development projects on

the desert ecosystem. Finally site specific action plans should be designed to convert the

potential habitats to either CR or CCR category to protect wildlife in those areas.

1. INTRODUCTION

Despite unique biodiversity values and conservation oriented traditional agro-pastoral

livelihoods, natural habitats and wildlife species of arid landscape in western India are

facing imminent risk due to our neglect, societal obstinacy and limitations in

management practices. In the field of wildlife conservation and management practices,

protected areas (PAs) are thought to be the cornerstone of conservation. The protected

areas in India consist of four categories: National Parks (NP) and Wildlife Sanctuaries

(WLS) are the two major categories while Community Conservation Reserves (CCR)

and Conservation Reserves (CR) are the two newly created categories.

But it is often anecdotally referred that more wildlife exists outside the protected areas.

Owing to small size, the existing protected areas are not fully capable of protecting all

biodiversity and wildlife. IUCN 2013 guidelines on “Identification and gap analysis of key

biodiversity area targets for comprehensive protected area system” propose to include all

important bird, plant and biodiversity areas to reduce the conservation gaps.

Rajasthan, the largest State in India has about 32,700 sq. km (9.56%) of geographical

land under forests. The natural forests in Rajasthan are primarily dry deciduous forests

and are mostly confined to areas east of Aravalli. Rajasthan has two National Parks

(Keoladeo and Ranthambhore), 25 Wildlife Sanctuaries and four Conservation Reserves

with 9485.46 sq. km of land which is roughly about 29% of forest area or about 2.77% of

geographical land under protected areas. The distribution of these protected areas is

1|P a g e

Introduction

2 | P a g e

rather skewed, most of them are confined to east of Aravalli Hill range with exception

of Desert National Park (Jaisalmer) and Tal Chhapper (Churu) on the western side of

the state. These protected areas are last surviving homes for dry deciduous forests

regions of India which include major species like tiger, leopard, sloth bear, chital,

sambar, chinkara, black Buck etc.

Until 2002 amendment of Wildlife Protection Act (WPA 1972), Rajasthan had a unique

category of protected area viz. Closed Area (CA). The closed areas were wildlife rich

areas, declared under section 37 of WPA 1972 to provide protection to mega-fauna of

that place during their breeding season. During 1980’s Rajasthan state government had

notified about 14,689.71 sq. km of geographical land by marking 33 Closed Areas (CA)

(table 1) to forbid hunting during the breeding season of the wild ungulates especially

blackbuck and chinkara. These erstwhile CAs in Rajasthan State were situated in 17

districts out of 33 districts. The distribution of these CAs was not uniform. In district

Jodhpur there are seven closed areas, five in Bikaner district and about three to one

such areas are located in other districts. Rajasthan Forest Department used to protect

these notified areas against shooting and hunting of wildlife, which were otherwise

open to public for hunting during the rest of the year. The 2002 WPA amendment,

prohibited hunting throughout the country irrespective of the season, thus rendering

section 37 redundant which was subsequently repealed.

Introduction

3 | P a g e

Table 1. Location, geographical area and habitat type of all the erstwhile closed areas

in Rajasthan state

Sl. No. Name of Area District Area (km2) Type of

habitat

1 Tilora Ajmer 1.42 Desert

2 Gagwana Ajmer 225 Desert

3 Sonkhalia Ajmer 526.81 Desert

4 Barrod Alwar 2.36 Non Desert

5 Jodia Alwar 30 Non Desert

6 Dhorimanna Barmer 680.17 Desert

7 Deshnok Bikaner 25.17 Desert

8 Doytra Bikaner 50.19 Desert

9 Jodvir Bikaner 75.84 Desert

10 Mukam Bikaner 168.82 Desert

11 Bajoo Bikaner 210 Desert

12 Kanak Sagar Bundi 8 Non Desert

13 Menal Chittorgarh 107.96 Non Desert

14 Sawantsar Sagar Churu 70.19 Desert

15 Santhal Sagar Jaipur 3 Non Desert

16 Mehlan Jaipur 150 Non Desert

17 Ram Devra Jaisalmer 3000 Desert

18 Ujala Jaisalmer 3000 Desert

19 Sanchore Jalore 1813.12 Desert

20 Doli Jodhpur 424.76 Desert

21 Fitkashni Jodhpur 5.7 Desert

22 Sathin Jodhpur 242.86 Desert

23 Gudha Bishnoi Jodhpur 418.88 Desert

24 Dechu Jodhpur 666.18 Desert

25 Jamberserwerji Jodhpur 870.24 Desert

26 Lohawat Jodhpur 1242.31 Desert

27 Sorsan Kota 100 Non Desert

28 Jaroda Nagaur 30 Desert

29 Rotu Nagaur 586.2 Desert

30 Jawai Ram Pali 5 Desert

31 Qualji Sawai Madhopur 37.8 Non Desert

32 Ranipura Tonk 87.77 Non Desert

33 Bagdaraha Udaipur 3.42 Non Desert

Introduction

4 | P a g e

Western part of the Rajasthan is arid zone with vast grass lands. The arid zone harbors

varied biodiversity despite harsh climatic conditions and low rainfall, due to the

traditional contribution of the local community and their cultural beliefs. The

geographical area under closed area category was much more than all PAs in the state.

Thus, the closed areas can be developed as safe haven for wildlife outside formally

declared protected area system in Rajasthan. Out of the 33 CAs, 25 are located in the

western part of Rajasthan in contrary to the locations of the conventional PAs which are

mostly confined to eastern part of the state. There were six closed areas situated in

Jodhpur district such as Guda Bishnoiyan - Fitkashni, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu

and Doli-Dhawa which cover 98 villages in total. A few years ago, four villages of Doli-

Dhawa closed area were re-classified to the district administration of Barmer. However,

with the 2002 WPA amendment, the closed areas had lost their legal significance and

relegated to history though there were efforts to convert these closed areas into

community conserved reserves or conservation reserves.

Historically and ecologically the arid agro-grass habitats of Jodhpur district had

supported many wildlife species such as blackbuck Antilope cervicapra, chinkara Gazella

bennettii, Indian grey wolf Canis lupus pallipes, desert fox Vulpes vulpes pusilla, Indian fox

Vulpes bengalensis and Spiny-tailed Lizard Saara hardwickii which are data deficient and

threatened (Dookia 2009; Dutta et al. 2014).

Introduction

5 | P a g e

This ecological survey aimed at generating information on population and habitat

status of the wild herbivore species surviving in the crucial human dominated arid

landscape referred as erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district in western Rajasthan.

Official data and records available with the department do not provide details about

conservation values, well documented maps of the closed areas, scientifically estimated

population parameters of major wildlife species and perception of the local

communities towards conservation initiatives. Therefore, there is urgent need to

understand ecological status of these closed areas, so that efforts can be initiated to

preserve these areas for the wildlife surviving in these wilderness areas and also to

convert potential closed areas into community conservation reserves. So far, no study

has been undertaken to evaluate biodiversity, ecology of large mammals in these

landscapes which are outside protected areas (National park or Sanctuary). The CAs of

Rajasthan has therefore great potential to become community conserved wildlife

reserve (CCR) or conservation reserve (CR).

6 | P a g e

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The present study was undertaken to pursue the following objectives -

to estimate current status and distribution of wildlife and habitat conditions of

the closed areas in Jodhpur district,

to mark the historical closed areas and currently potential areas for wildlife

conservation and prepare maps,

to assess key problems and potentials of each of the closed areas in Jodhpur

district,

to understand the perception of the local communities towards wildlife

conservation and present management practices,

to evaluate potentials for converting these CA to CCA or CR depending on the

site suitability and

to recommend proper management interventions according to the respective

conservation values of the closed areas in Jodhpur district.

3. STUDY AREA

The present study was carried out in six erstwhile closed areas viz. “Guda Bishnoiyan

and Fitkashni, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu-Thadiya and Doli-Dhawa” located in

Jodhpur and Barmer districts of Rajasthan. These closed areas were situated around 98

villages, out of which 94 villages are located in Jodhpur district and rest four are

situated in Barmer district. The details of the approximate geographical areas and

locations of all these closed areas are shown in Table 2 and figure 1.

Table 2. The approximate geographical areas of the six erstwhile closed areas in

Jodhpur district

Sl.

No. Name of the Closed Area (CA) District

Approximate

geographical area

as per notification

(in km2)

1 Guda Bishnoiyan and Fitkashni Jodhpur 424.58

2 Sathin Jodhpur 242.86

3 Jamba Jodhpur 870.24

4 Lohawat Jodhpur 1242.31

5 Dechu-Thadiya Jodhpur 666.18

6 Doli-Dhawa Jodhpur and

Barmer 424.76

Total geographical area 3870.93

7|P a g e

Study area

8 | P a g e

Figure 1. The geographical locations of the six erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur

district

The entire study area falls in Desert Biogeographic Zone (Rodgers et al. 2002). Total

geographical area of Jodhpur district is 22, 850 sq.km and lies between N 26.00o to 27.620

and E 72.92o to 73.87o. This district is situated at an altitude between 250 to 300 meters

above mean sea level. Jodhpur forest division has 201.37 sq. km forest areas, which

represents nearly 1% of the total geographical area of the district. Jodhpur district has

ten sub-districts or tehsils as per revenue administration such as Jodhpur, Osian, Luni,

Study area

9 | P a g e

Shergarh, Bilada, Bhopalgarh, Phalodi, Baap, Balesar and Pipar city and ten Panchayat

Samities such as Mandoor, Luni, bilada, Bhopal garh, Osion, Shergarh, Balesar, Phalodi,

Baap and Babari.

The climate is characterized by very hot summer (temperature rising up to 50oC),

relatively cold winter (temperature dropping below 0oC), and large diurnal temperature

range (Sikka 1997). Water is a limiting factor in this district. From the available records

of all tehsils the annual average rainfall of last ten years is 365 mm which is 22 percent

more than the average annual rainfall of last five decades which was 300.5 mm. This

total rainfall is spread over around 17 rain days. Rainfall pattern is scarce and erratic, at

mean annual quanta of 100-500 mm that decreases from east to west (Pandeya et al.

1977). The Natural rain water drainage of eastern plan lands goes to the Luni and Bandi

seasonal rivers. There is no water shed having clear ridge line except the parts of Tiwari

and Balesar hills.

In many places in the district tube wells and hand pumps have been installed to attain

the drinking water requirement and at places the ground water is also used for

irrigation purpose. Most of the villages have “Nadi and Talav” as per the traditional

source of water which cater the water requirement of human and animal population but

the increasing human and livestock population pressure and encroachments are

becoming the major constraint to this water deprived state . In the recent past the Rajiv

Study area

10 | P a g e

Gandhi Lift Canal which comes from 1050 RD of Indira Gandhi Canal and reaches

Jodhpur via Phalodi, discharges its water into Kaylana and Takhat Sagar lakes. Due to

this water the ground water table of the surrounding areas has raised to a great extend

and the drinking water problem of the Jodhpur city has been solved (Working plan

Jodhpur 2013-14 to 2022-23).

Broad topographical features are gravel plains, rocky hillocks, sand-soil mix, and sand

dunes (Ramesh and Ishwar 2008). In Jodhpur district mainly sedimentary rocks such as

are found in the hilly areas. Some hills have Besalt and Granite rocks. Limestone rocks

are also present in between Pipar to Borunda and Verna hilly areas. Sand stone is

another important sedimentary rock which extends from Jodhpur to Mandore to

Balesar – Tiwari (Working plan Jodhpur 2013-14 to 2022-23).

The vegetation found in Jodhpur district is of Thorny Scrub type, characterized by open

woodland dominated by khejri (Prosopis cineraria), jaal (Salvadora Persica), ber (Zizyphus

mauritiana), dhaak (Butea monosperma), desi babul (Acacial nilotica), khumta (Acacia

senegal), neem (Azadirachta indica), Israeli babul (Acacia tortilis) and roheda (Tecomella

undulata) trees. The scrublands are dominated by Capparis decidua, Zizyphus nummularia,

Salvadora, Calligonum, Leptadenia and Aerva shrubs and grasslands dominated by

dhaman (Cenchrus ciliaris), lapala (Aristida depressa), baru (Sorghum halopense), sewan

(Lasisurus sindicus), Crotalaria and Sewan Lasiurus. In the stony areas thor species

Study area

11 | P a g e

(Euphorbia spp.) are found. The pure forest of khejri, jaal, babul, khumta and neem etc.

have almost being denuded and now these species are mainly found in scattered

position mixed with Prosopis juliflora (Working plan Jodhpur, 2013-14 to 2022-23).

Jodhpur district is very rich in wildlife. Here wildlife species such as chinkara (Gazella

bennettii), blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelous), Indian grey

wolf (Canis lupus pallipes), hyena (Hyena hyena), desert cat (Felis silvestris), desert fox

(Vulpes vulpes pusilla), Indian fox (Vulpes bengalensis), golden jackal (Canis aureus), wild

pig (Sus scrofa), mongoose (Herpestes spp.) etc can be seen not only in forest areas but

also in revenue and wastelands. Apart from the above mammalian species, important

bird species such as macqueen’s bustard Chlamydotis macqueenii, cream-coloured courser

Cursorius cursor, sandgrouses Pterocles spp., larks, peafowl, francolins, vultures and

other raptors etc. are also found in this district. In winter season the migratory bird

demoiselle crane (Anthropoides virgo, local name kuranja) can also be seen near water

points like Kheechan. Spiny-tailed lizard (Saara hardwickii) is another important fauna

of this area. Apart from these wild species, large populations of domestic livestock

(cattle Bos indicus, buffalo Bubalus bubalis, goat Capra aegagrus hircus, sheep Ovis aries,

Indian camel Camelus dromedaries and donkey Equus africanus asinus) are also found in

this district (Working plan Jodhpur 2013-14 to 2022-23).

Study area

12 | P a g e

Jodhpur district has mainly 2 types of geographical land - Easterly dry plane land and

Western desert area.

Easterly dry plane land - Mandor, Luni, Bilada and Bhopal garh area lies mainly in the

catchment of Bandi and Luni seasonal rivers. This part of land has slightly sandy, loom

or heavy loamy grounds which has 30 cm to 120 cm soil depth with slightly stony thin

layer. Major native species of this land are khejri, roheda and kheep. Prosopis juliflora is

also found in this area as one of the dominating exotic species.

Western desert area - Western desert areas of the district mainly comprise of the

regions of Osion, Balesar, Shergarh, Phalodi and Baap. Major native species of this land

are similar to eastern part but abundance and distribution of Prosopis juliflora in this

area is greatly observed than the previous area. Most of the areas are sandy and due to

sand storms permanent / temporary sand dunes used to get developed. The western

desert area is inhabited by 85 people km-2 who largely stay in small villages and dhanis

(hamlets with clusters of 2-8 huts) and depend on pastoralism and dry farming for

livelihoods.

The present study was performed by four field survey teams constituted with four

qualified wildlife biologists and well trained front line personnel of Jodhpur forest

department (wildlife wing) during January 2015 to February 2015.

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 Estimation of current status and distribution of wildlife and habitat conditions of

the closed areas in Jodhpur

Wild and domestic herbivore species availability in the present study was estimated by

line transect method under distance sampling technique (Burnham et al. 1980). This

method had been widely applied to estimate densities of large herbivore species

(mainly ungulates) in different forests in Indian subcontinent (Karanth and Sunquist

1995; Khan et al. 1996; Stoen and Wegge 1996; Biswas and Sankar 2002; Bagchi et al.

2003; Harihar et al. 2009; Bhattacharjee 2014). All the erstwhile closed areas were

divided into 5km x 5km (25 km2) grid layer to follow systematic sampling procedure.

We tried to lay at least one line transect in one grid but our efforts were limited by

logistic constraints in desert landscape and also in the areas fenced by private land

owners. Therefore, we tried to sample the maximum area possible under limited logistic

provisions. A total of 130 line transects of length varying from 2.5 to 4 km. were walked

three times in the morning as well as in the afternoon time (at least once in the morning

and twice in the afternoon or vice versa) by four teams of qualified wildlife biologists

and well trained forest department staff during the study period (January 2015 to

February 2015) (Figure 2). The total transects length in the entire study area was 488.5

km. For each line transect, the beginning and end point coordinates (Latitude and

Longitude) were recorded by a handheld GARMIN-72 Global Positioning System. The

13|P a g e

Methodology

14 | P a g e

bearings of each of the line transect were also measured using look through magnetic

compass (Suunto KB 20). The broad vegetation types and terrain types in which each

transect was laid, were also recorded. Record was kept for all wild ungulates, domestic

livestock, hare and two birds such as peafowl and grey francolin that were seen during

the walk.

Figure 2. The locations of line transects laid and walked in all the erstwhile closed

areas of Jodhpur district

Methodology

15 | P a g e

On every walk the following information were noted:

Species identity: Data on each species was collected separately on each transect walk.

Group size: An individual animal or more than one animal of the same species within

30 m to each other were considered to be a single group.

Age and sex composition: Whenever any individual or group was observed the broad

age category and gender of the individuals comprising that group were also collected.

Radial distance: Bushnell made Laser Range Finder was used to measure the radial

distance of the animal. In case of a herd, distance to the centre of the herd was recorded.

Sighting angle: Magnetic look through compass (Suunto KB 20) was used to find the

bearing of the animal seen with respect to the transect line from the initial point of

observation. In case of the herd, the angle between the point of the observation and the

centre of herd was recorded.

Program DISTANCE 6.0 (Thomas et al. 2009) was used to estimate the density of prey

species. The data after imported into DISTANCE 6.0 was primarily examined by

assigning very small intervals to the perpendicular distance classes. Next on the basis of

the general distribution of the data, suitable cut points were chosen to optimize the fit of

the model. The best model was selected on the basis of the lowest Akaike Information

Criterion (AIC) (Burnham et al. 1980; Buckland et al. 1993).

The number of individuals in each species per unit area multiplied by the average

weight for the species gives an estimate of the biomass for the area (Schaller 1967). In

Methodology

16 | P a g e

the present study, the biomass estimation was done by multiplying the density

(density/km2) of each prey species in the respective closed areas by their average body

weight (Sankar and Johnsingh 2002; Bhattacharjee 2014). The following assumptions

were made for the line transect sampling in the present study:

1. The animals were randomly and independently distributed in the study area

2. The sighting of one animal was independent of the sighting of another.

3. No animal was counted more than once.

4. Animals were fixed at the initial sighting position and did not move before being

counted and distance to them from the transect being measured.

5. The response behaviors of the prey population as a whole did not substantially

change in the course of walking a line transect.

6. The individuals were homogeneous with regard to their responsive behavior,

regardless of sex, age etc.

7. The probability of an animal being seen , given that it was a right angle distance y

from the line transect path (irrespective of which side of path it is on ) , was a simple

function g(y) , say of y , such that g(0) =1( i.e. probability 1 of seeing an animal on the

path ).

8. Animals directly on the line were never being missed.

9. Distances and angles were always measured accurately.

(After Seber 1982; Burnham et al. 1980; Buckland et al. 2001)

Methodology

17 | P a g e

In Jodhpur, due to its high aridity in nature, distribution of prey species could not be

treated as random especially in summer when the animals tend to concentrate around

water sources. However by placing the line transects randomly in every representative

landuse-landcover and terrain types in all the erstwhile closed areas, the first

assumption was not violated as well as we chose the winter season as sampling period

when animals seem to be randomly distributed irrespective of water availability. There

was very little chance of violating the other four assumptions in Jodhpur where

substantially open habitat conditions permit easy detection and accurate measurement

of data. These transects were walked three times in total covering both early morning

time from 700 hours to 1030 hours and also at least once in the afternoon from 1430

hours to 1800 hours to avoid any temporal bias in detection of animals due to their

activity patterns and also to reduce the error in estimating the herbivore abundance.

GPS locations of each sighting was also recorded to subsequently prepare an animal

distribution map for each species sighted and recorded during the transect walks.

Vegetation sampling: To obtain the density, diversity and dominance parameters of the

vegetation layers (trees and shrubs), at each 200 m point on each line transects, 10m x

10m and 5m x 5m quadrats were laid to enumerate the tree and shrub layer respectively

(Cox 1990). Sampling with quadrats (plots of a standard size) can be used for most plant

communities (Cox 1990). A quadrat delimits an area in which vegetation cover can be

estimated, plants counted, or species listed. Therefore, at each 10m x 10m quadrat we

Methodology

18 | P a g e

recorded the tree species and the no. of individuals present within that area. At the

same time GBH of all the individual trees recorded to estimate the species dominance

(Kent and Coker 1992). Similarly, within the 5m x 5m quadrat shrubs are counted and

their specific identity was noted down. Thus, a total of 2515 sample quadrat plots were

laid in all the erstwhile closed areas to estimate the above mentioned parameters for the

evaluation of density, diversity and dominance of trees as well as density and diversity

of shrubs in Jodhpur district. Sobs richness is the total number of species observed in a

sample, or in a set of samples. On the other hand, diversity of species is calculated by

the formula (Chao 1984; Colwell and Coddington 1994):

Where “Sobs” is the number of species in the sample, F1 is the number of singletons (i.e.,

the number of species with only a single occurrence in the sample) and F2 is the number

of doubletons (the number of species with exactly two occurrences in the sample). For

calculating dominance of trees and shrubs, density of trees and shrub species was

calculated in per hectare. Dominance of a species is determined by the value of the

basal cover. Finally importance value indexes (IVI) of each tree species were estimated

(Curtis 1959) for the entire study area of Jodhpur district. In Quadrat Sampling, the

following formulae were used to estimate the vegetation layers:

http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/238/refer.htm#Chao, A. 1984.

http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/238/refer.htm#Colwell, R.K. and Coddington, J.A. 1994.

Methodology

19 | P a g e

Density = Total no. of individuals of a particular species / total area sampled

Relative Density = species density / total density for all species x 100

Frequency = no. of quadrats in which a particular species occur / total no. of quadrats

sampled

Relative Frequency = species frequency / total of frequency values for all species x 100

Dominance (Basal Area) = sum of the basal area of each tree of a species from all plots /

the total area of all of the measured plots

Relative Dominance = Basal area of a given species / the sum of the basal areas of all of

the species x 100

Importance Value = Relative frequency + Relative density + Relative dominance for each

species

A software ‘EstimateSWin750’ (Colwell 1997) was used to estimate diversity and

richness of trees and shrubs.

4.2 Marking of the historical closed areas and currently potential areas for wildlife

conservation in GIS domain and preparation of maps

Geographical locations (latitude, longitude and altitude) of important landmarks

(Government offices, hospital, schools, temples, water point etc.) and indications of

habitat fragmentations such as major roads, railway tracks and barbed wire fencing

around the agricultural fields were recorded using a handheld GARMIN-72 Global

Positioning System. Later on, these locations were plotted on GIS (Geographical

Information System) domain to prepare suitable layers of each landmark classes as well

as fragmented habitats which were not available for the wild herbivores any more

Methodology

20 | P a g e

causing discontinuation or fragmentation in the landscape. These maps would be

helpful for identifying the threats arising in this district showing the lost habitats as

well as remaining potential habits for the wildlife conservation.

4.3 Assessment of the key problems and potentials of each of the closed areas in

Jodhpur district and understanding the perception of the local communities towards

wildlife conservation and present management practices

Socio-economic semi-structured questionnaire survey was carried out to assess the key

problems and potentials of each of the closed areas in Jodhpur district and also to

understand the perception of the local communities towards wildlife conservation and

present management practices. Except two villages in Guda area which were entirely

urbanized by Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA), Other 96 villages around all the

six erstwhile closed areas were surveyed during the study period. Two percent of adult

human population (age more than 18 years) from each village was interviewed with

both open and closed ended questions to understand their perception towards wildlife

conservation and related issues. From these interviews, the key problems and potentials

of each of the closed areas were also tried to identify to help the management decisions.

The questionnaire consisted of three main sections: basic demographic and socio-

economic information about the interviewed person; questions related to attitude

towards present status of wildlife, forest and the earlier legal status of closed areas and

questions related to perceptions towards the conservation measures to mitigate human-

Methodology

21 | P a g e

wildlife conflict issues including their opinion on the present conflict management

system. The response of the local communities about the conservation scenarios and

management issues were binomially coded with 0 and 1. Thereafter, bootstrapping with

fifty thousand iterations were also carried out for each component to obtain a 95%

confidence interval for the mean of each response from the respondents using “boot”

function of the software R (R Development Core Team 2006).

5. RESULTS

5.1 Estimation of current status and distribution of wildlife and habitat conditions of the

closed areas in Jodhpur

A total of 130 line transects (spatial replicates of length ranging from 2.5 km to 4 km;

figure 2) were walked three times in both morning and afternoon (at least once in the

morning and twice in the afternoon or vice versa) to understand the status and

distribution of the major herbivores (both wild and domestic) as well the habitat

conditions were also evaluated using 10m x 10m quadrat plots for tree layer and 5m x

5m quadrat plots for shrub layers at every 200m interval on each line transect. The total

effort on 130 line transects was 1461 km resulting in a total 390 walks or temporal

replicates. Simultaneously 2515 habitat plots were also sampled to estimate the density,

diversity, richness and dominance of the vegetation layers (tree and shrub layers).

In total, 13 potential prey species were recorded on line transects. These were four wild

ungulate species (blackbuck, chinkara, nilgai and wild pig), two small mammal (both

Indian rufous tailed hare Lepus nigricollis ruficaudatus and Indian desert hare Lepus

nigricollis dayanus) (Menon 2014), five domestic livestock (cattle, buffalo, goat, sheep and

Indian camel) and two birds (peafowl Pavo cristatus and grey francolin Francolinus

pondicerianus). We have also recorded the observations of wild carnivores during

transect walks. Four wild canid species such as Indian grey wolf, golden jackal, Indian

fox and desert fox were observed and recorded during the transect walk. Only a total of

22 |P a g e 22 |P a g e

Results

23 | P a g e

three observations for each of wild pigs and hare could be recorded during the study

and therefore these three species could not be included in distance sampling protocol

due to inadequacy of information to estimate their population parameters.

The details of the population estimation results for eight mammalian species and two

avian species for each of the erstwhile closed area and also for the entire study area,

such as the recorded total number of observations, estimated cluster size, group

encounter rate and density of different prey species are given in tables 3 to table 9. Since

cluster size is an ecological parameter for a particular species therefore detection

function was kept identical for one individual species throughout all the erstwhile

closed areas as well as for the entire study area which had similar habitat conditions

and detectability profile.

Out of six erstwhile closed areas, blackbuck was recorded in three places such as Guda

Bishnoiyan – Fitkashni, Sathin and Doli-Dhawa. Nilgai was not directly seen on the line

transects laid in Jamba closed area whereas their presence was confirmed in that area

from their pellets and dung sites. Except this, nilgai was recorded on line transects in

other five erstwhile closed areas. Chinkara, peafowl, grey francolin and other domestic

livestock were observed on line transects in all the six erstwhile closed areas except no

buffalo was seen in Jamba closed area.

Among all the wild prey species, chinkara was estimated as most abundant with

highest density (Di ± SE) as 7.51 ± 0.96 individual km-2 for the entire study area. The

Results

24 | P a g e

mean cluster size estimated for chinkara was 4.93 and the best fitted detection function

model selected was half normal with model adjustment of hermite polynomial-4. The

individual densities (Di ± SE) of chinkara were estimated as 5.66 ± 1.19 km-2, 5.58 ± 1.47

km-2, 8.17 ± 2.00 km-2, 5.03 ± 1.22 km-2, 3.19 ± 1.54 km-2 and 13.80 ± 2.13 km-2 in the

erstwhile closed areas such as Guda Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and

Doli-Dhawa respectively.

The individual density (Di ± SE) of blackbuck for the entire study area was estimated as

2.08 ± 0.64 km-2 whereas it ranged from 1.70 ± 0.83 km-2 to 3.47 ± 1.35 km-2 to 5.95 ± 2.30

km-2 in the erstwhile closed areas such as Sathin, Guda Bishnoiyan and Doli-Dhawa

respectively. The mean cluster size of blackbuck was estimated as 7.94 and the best

fitted detection function for this species was uniform with the model adjustment term

simple polynomial 2. The estimated individual density of nilgai for the overall study

area was 2.11 ± 0.41 km-2 with region wise densities such as 2.47 ± 0.86 km-2, 4.97 ± 1.39

km-2, 1.14 ± 0.63 km-2, 1.18 ± 0.59 km-2 and 2.66 ± 0.74 km-2 estimated in Guda

Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa respectively. Half normal was

selected as best fitted detection model for nilgai with the estimated mean cluster size of

4.54 throughout the study area.

The mean cluster size of peafowl was estimated as 5.65 throughout the study area

whereas the best fitted detection model for this species was uniform with model

adjustment term of cosine 1. The overall individual density (Di ± SE) of peafowl for the

Results

25 | P a g e

entire study area was estimated as 3.35 ± 0.60 km-2 whereas the region wise estimated

densities of the same were 4.78 ± 1.79 km-2, 4.18 ± 1.49 km-2, 0.27 ± 0.27 km-2, 0.76 ± 0.36

km-2, 3.51 ± 0.88 km-2 and 5.78 ± 1.47 km-2 in the erstwhile closed areas such as Guda

Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa respectively. The

individual densities (Di ± SE) of grey francolin were estimated for the overall study area

as well as for all the six erstwhile closed areas such as Guda Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Jamba,

Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa as 3.42 ± 0.66 km-2, 5.66 ± 1.38 km-2, 6.73 ± 1.68 km-2,

0.81 ± 0.57 km-2, 3.18 ± 1.19 km-2, 4.93 ± 1.50 km-2 and 0.93 ± 0.57 km-2 respectively. Half

normal was the best fitted detection model for grey francolin with the model

adjustment term cosine 2 whereas the estimated mean cluster size for this species was

2.36.

Except buffalo and camel, the overall estimated individual densities (Di ± SE) of other

domestic livestock species (cattle, goat and sheep) were much higher in each closed area

site as well as in the entire study area than the wild herbivores. The overall estimated

individual densities (Di ± SE) of the domestic livestock species such as buffalo, cattle,

goat, sheep and camel were 1.70 ± 0.44 km-2, 29.13 ± 2.19 km-2, 34.05 ± 3.26 km-2, 28.49 ±

4.02 km-2 and 1.18 ± 0.32 km-2 respectively. Half normal was selected as the best fitted

detection model for all five domestic livestock species whereas for camel, cosine 2 was

used as detection model adjustment term.

Results

26 | P a g e

The available prey biomass density (both wild and domestic) was calculated as 8236.51

kg km-2, 8569.33 kg km-2, 7171.30 kg km-2, 7073.58 kg km-2, 8944.58 kg km-2, 8600.00 kg

km-2, 8614.43 kg km-2 for the entire study area and the erstwhile closed areas such as

Guda Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa respectively. Figure

3 shows comparative detail of estimated individual densities (Di ± SE) of all the major

mammalian prey species during the study period region wise as well as for the entire

study area. The estimated detection probability pattern curves for all the ten species

(wild and domestic) during the study period were given in figure 4 to figure 13. The

distribution all the wild prey species and domestic livestock across the entire study area

during the study period are shown in figure 14 to figure 19.

Figure 3. Comparative individual densities (Di ± SE) of different mammalian

herbivores (wild and domestic) across different study sites and overall study area

Results

27 | P a g e

Table 3. Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in

erstwhile closed area Guda Bishnoiyan – Fitkashni of Jodhpur district

Category / Prey species Wild prey species Domestic Livestock

Blackbuck Chinkara Nilgai Peafowl Grey Francolin

Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep Camel

No. of spatial replicates (Line Transect)

23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

Total no of walk 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69

Effort (L) km 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5

Total no of observation 17 45 17 18 14 24 73 10 12 4

Individual Density (Di) / km2 3.47 5.66 2.47 4.78 5.66 6.40 28.36 9.17 18.41 0.95

Di Standard Error (± SE) 1.35 1.19 0.86 1.79 1.38 1.60 3.34 2.82 5.62 0.45

Biomass (kg / km2) 121.45 67.92 444.60 16.25 1.53 1747.20 5104.80 206.33 460.25 399.00

Di Coefficient of variation (% CV) 38.76 20.97 34.94 37.44 24.36 25.12 11.78 30.77 30.54 47.87

Di - 95% Confidence Interval 1.62 - 7.44 3.71 - 8.63

1.23 - 4.96

2.27 - 10.09

3.50 - 9.18 3.91 - 10.47

22.36 - 35.97

4.93 - 17.05

9.96 - 34.02

0.38 - 2.39

Group Density (Ds) / km2 0.44 1.29 0.54 0.85 2.40 1.26 3.00 0.49 0.54 0.11

Ds Standard Error (± SE) 0.16 0.27 0.19 0.31 0.54 0.26 0.32 0.15 0.16 0.05

Ds Coefficient of variation (% CV) 36.00 20.68 34.04 36.62 22.48 20.91 10.78 30.47 30.07 45.61

Cluster Size (Mean) 7.94 4.39 4.54 5.65 2.36 5.09 9.46 18.92 33.93 8.42

Standard Error (± SE) 1.14 0.15 0.36 0.44 0.22 0.71 0.45 0.80 1.80 1.22

Detection probability (p) 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.50 0.29 0.45 0.43 0.42 0.34 0.31

Goodness of fit (chi2 - p) 0.63 0.77 0.54 0.91 0.94 0.40 0.61 0.57 0.69 0.88

Effective Strip Width (ESW) (m) 96.03 86.33 77.23 52.50 14.41 47.11 60.15 50.96 54.61 87.56

Group encounter rate / km 0.08 0.22 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.36 0.05 0.06 0.02

Model Uniform Half normal

Half normal

Uniform Half normal Half

normal Half

normal Half

normal Half

normal Half

normal

Model adjustment term Simple polynomial - 2

Hermite polynomial - 4

Cosine -1

Cosine - 2

Cosine - 2

Results

28 | P a g e


erstwhile closed area Sathin of Jodhpur district

Category / Prey species

Wild prey species Domestic Livestock

Blackbuck Chinkara Nilgai Peafowl Grey

Francolin Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep Camel


19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Total no of walk 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57

Effort (L) km 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219




Biomass (kg / km2) 59.50 66.96 894.60 14.21 1.82 739.83 3232.80 934.43 1134.75 92.40


Di - 95% Confidence Interval 0.65 - 4.43 3.27 - 9.52 2.83 - 8.74

2.03 - 8.59

4.09 - 11.07

1.04 - 7.10

13.95 - 23.13

29.29 - 58.90

27.67 - 74.47

0.04 - 1.28










Model Uniform Half normal Half

normal Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Model adjustment term Simple

polynomial - 2 Hermite

polynomial - 4 Cosine -1 Cosine - 2

Cosine - 2

Results

29 | P a g e


erstwhile closed area Jamba of Jodhpur district





No. of spatial replicates (Line Transect) 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Total no of walk 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

Effort (L) km 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5 202.5

Total no of observation N.R. 65 N.R. 1 2 N.R. 68 41 15 8

Individual Density (Di) / km2 N.R. 8.17 N.R. 0.27 0.81 N.R. 26.42 37.58 23.01 1.90

Di Standard Error (± SE) N.R. 2.00 N.R. 0.27 0.57 N.R. 5.23 6.57 7.60 0.73

Biomass (kg / km2) N.R. 98.04 N.R. 0.92 0.22 N.R. 4755.60 845.55 575.25 798.00

Di Coefficient of variation (% CV) N.R. 24.46 N.R. 100.38 69.89 N.R. 19.81 17.47 33.03 38.29

Di - 95% Confidence Interval N.R. 4.95 - 13.49 N.R. 0.05 - 1.56

0.21 - 3.05

N.R. 17.53 - 39.83

26.21 - 53.90

11.71 - 45.20

0.89 - 4.04

Group Density (Ds) / km2 N.R. 1.86 N.R. 0.05 0.34 N.R. 2.79 1.99 0.68 0.23

Ds Standard Error (± SE) N.R. 0.45 N.R. 0.05 0.24 N.R. 0.54 0.34 0.22 0.08

Ds Coefficient of variation (% CV) N.R. 24.21 N.R. 100.07 69.26 N.R. 19.23 16.95 32.60 35.44

Cluster Size (Mean) N.R. 4.39 N.R. 5.65 2.36 N.R. 9.46 18.92 33.93 8.42

Standard Error (± SE) N.R. 0.15 N.R. 0.44 0.22 N.R. 0.45 0.80 1.80 1.22

Detection probability (p) N.R. 0.48 N.R. 0.50 0.29 N.R. 0.43 0.42 0.34 0.31

Goodness of fit (chi2 - p) N.R. 0.77 N.R. 0.91 0.94 N.R. 0.61 0.57 0.69 0.88

Effective Strip Width (ESW) (m) N.R. 86.33 N.R. 52.50 14.41 N.R. 60.15 50.96 54.61 87.56

Group encounter rate / km N.R. 0.32 N.R. 0.01 0.01 N.R. 0.34 0.20 0.07 0.04

Model N.R. Half normal N.R. Uniform Half

normal N.R.

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal Half

normal

Model adjustment term N.R. Hermite

polynomial - 4 N.R.

Cosine -1

Cosine - 2 N.R.

Cosine - 2

(N.R. – Not Recorded)

Results

30 | P a g e


erstwhile closed area Lohawat of Jodhpur district






Total no of walk 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72

Effort (L) km 283.5 283.5 283.5 283.5 283.5 283.5 283.5 283.5 283.5 283.5

Total no of observation N.R. 56 11 4 11 4 138 51 14 6

Individual Density (Di) / km2 N.R. 5.03 1.14 0.76 3.18 0.80 38.30 33.39 15.34 1.02

Di Standard Error (± SE) N.R. 1.22 0.63 0.36 1.19 0.57 4.09 6.75 5.40 0.49

Biomass (kg / km2) N.R. 60.36 205.20 2.58 0.86 218.40 6894.00 751.28 383.50 428.40

Di Coefficient of variation (% CV) N.R. 24.28 55.07 47.97 37.39 71.35 10.68 20.20 35.18 48.45

Di - 95% Confidence Interval N.R. 3.08 - 8.20 0.40 - 3.30

0.30 - 1.94

1.52 - 6.64

0.21 - 2.98

30.91 - 47.45

22.17 - 50.29

7.60 - 30.96

0.40 - 2.59

Group Density (Ds) / km2 N.R. 1.14 0.25 0.13 1.35 0.16 4.05 1.77 0.45 0.12

Ds Standard Error (± SE) N.R. 0.28 0.14 0.06 0.49 0.11 0.39 0.35 0.16 0.05

Ds Coefficient of variation (% CV) N.R. 24.03 54.50 47.33 36.19 69.98 9.57 19.74 34.77 46.22

Cluster Size (Mean) N.R. 4.39 4.54 5.65 2.36 5.09 9.46 18.92 33.93 8.42

Standard Error (± SE) N.R. 0.15 0.36 0.44 0.22 0.71 0.45 0.80 1.80 1.22

Detection probability (p) N.R. 0.48 0.38 0.50 0.29 0.45 0.43 0.42 0.34 0.31

Goodness of fit (chi2 - p) N.R. 0.77 0.54 0.91 0.94 0.40 0.61 0.57 0.69 0.88

Effective Strip Width (ESW) (m) N.R. 86.33 77.23 52.50 14.41 47.11 60.15 50.96 54.61 87.56

Group encounter rate / km N.R. 0.20 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.49 0.18 0.05 0.02

Model N.R. Half normal Half

normal Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal



Cosine -

2


Results

31 | P a g e


erstwhile closed area Dechu of Jodhpur district






Total no of walk 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

Effort (L) km 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5

Total no of observation N.R. 25 8 13 12 3 70 44 34 9

Individual Density (Di) / km2 N.R. 3.19 1.18 3.51 4.93 0.77 27.61 40.94 52.94 2.17

Di Standard Error (± SE) N.R. 1.54 0.59 0.88 1.50 0.44 4.05 7.38 12.21 0.83

Biomass (kg / km2) N.R. 38.28 212.40 11.93 1.33 210.21 4969.80 921.15 1323.50 911.40

Di Coefficient of variation (% CV) N.R. 48.11 49.56 25.11 30.44 57.03 14.68 18.02 23.07 38.44

Di - 95% Confidence Interval N.R. 1.22 - 8.35 0.44 - 3.16

2.10 - 5.86

2.67 - 9.08

0.25 - 2.31

20.4 - 35.36

28.23 - 59.39

32.99 - 84.97

1.02 - 4.63

Group Density (Ds) / km2 N.R. 0.73 0.26 0.62 2.09 0.15 2.92 2.16 1.56 0.26

Ds Standard Error (± SE) N.R. 0.35 0.13 0.15 0.60 0.08 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.09

Ds Coefficient of variation (% CV) N.R. 47.99 48.93 23.87 28.95 55.30 13.89 17.51 22.45 35.59

Cluster Size (Mean) N.R. 4.39 4.54 5.65 2.36 5.09 9.46 18.92 33.93 8.42

Standard Error (± SE) N.R. 0.15 0.36 0.44 0.22 0.71 0.45 0.80 1.80 1.22

Detection probability (p) N.R. 0.48 0.38 0.50 0.29 0.45 0.43 0.42 0.34 0.31

Goodness of fit (chi2 - p) N.R. 0.77 0.54 0.91 0.94 0.40 0.61 0.57 0.69 0.88

Effective Strip Width (ESW) (m) N.R. 86.33 77.23 52.50 14.41 47.11 60.15 50.96 54.61 87.56

Group encounter rate / km N.R. 0.13 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.35 0.22 0.17 0.05

Model N.R. Half normal Half

normal Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal



Cosine -

2


Results

32 | P a g e


erstwhile closed area Doli-Dhawa of Jodhpur district






Total no of walk 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Effort (L) km 354 354 354 354 354 354 354 354 354 354




Biomass (kg / km2) 208.25 165.60 478.80 19.65 0.25 166.53 5680.80 861.30 592.25 441.00



3.48 - 9.57

0.29 - 2.91

0.19 - 1.95

26.22 - 37.98

29.19 - 50.21

14.41 - 38.96

0.44 - 2.49











normal Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal




Cosine - 2

Results

33 | P a g e

Table 9. Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in all

erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district






130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130

Total no of walk 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390

Effort (L) km 1461 1461 1461 1461 1461 1461 1461 1461 1461 1461




Biomass (kg / km2) 72.80 90.12 379.80 11.39 0.92 464.10 5243.40 766.13 712.25 495.60



2.37 - 4.74

2.34 - 5.00

1.02 - 2.82

25.13 - 33.77

28.22 - 41.09

21.62 - 37.55

0.70 - 2.00











normal Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal




Cosine - 2

Results

34 | P a g e

Figure 4. Detection probability curve of blackbuck generated by DISTANCE 6.0

software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-

February 2015.

Figure 5. Detection probability curve of chinkara generated by DISTANCE 6.0


February 2015.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Perpendicular distance in meters

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180


Results

35 | P a g e

Figure 6. Detection probability curve of nilgai generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software

as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February

2015.

Figure 7. Detection probability curve of peafowl generated by DISTANCE 6.0


February 2015.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Results

36 | P a g e

Figure 8. Detection probability curve of grey francolin generated by DISTANCE 6.0


February 2015.

Figure 9. Detection probability curve of domestic buffalo generated by DISTANCE

6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Results

37 | P a g e

Figure 10. Detection probability curve of cattle generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software


2015.

Figure 11. Detection probability curve of domestic goat generated by DISTANCE 6.0


February 2015.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Results

38 | P a g e

Figure 12. Detection probability curve of sheep generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software


2015.

Figure 13. Detection probability curve of camel generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software


2015.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Results

39 | P a g e

Figure 14. Distribution map of blackbuck as per line transect record in all the


Results

40 | P a g e

Figure 15. Distribution map of chinkara as per line transect record in all the erstwhile

closed areas of Jodhpur district

Results

41 | P a g e

Figure 16. Distribution map of nilgai as per line transect record in all the erstwhile


Results

42 | P a g e

Figure 17. Distribution map of peafowl as per line transect record in all the erstwhile


Results

43 | P a g e

Figure 18. Distribution map of grey francolin as per line transect record in all the


Results

44 | P a g e

Figure 19. Distribution map of domestic livestock as per line transect record in all the


Results

45 | P a g e

Results of habitat conditions (Vegetation Sampling):

The density of tree layer in the study area is ecologically very low due to the arid nature

of the soil. A total of 16 species of trees and 13 species of shrubs were encountered

during the vegetation sampling across the entire study area covering all 2515 quadrats.

The observed mean tree density (50.26 ± 9.96 SE ha-1) was lower than the mean shrub

density (343.88 ± 10.48 SE ha-1), though the mean diversity value was found to be higher

for trees (18.3 ± 0.003 SE) compared to shrubs (13.6 ± 0.005 SE). The detail of the density

estimates of the tree and shrub layers across all the six erstwhile closed areas as well as

for the entire study area are given in table 10 and table 11 respectively. The sobs (‘Mao

Tau’ Colwell et al. 2004) richness and Chao diversity index values (Chao 1984) of each

category of vegetation (trees and shrubs) were given in tables 12 and 13. The mean

richness of tree and shrub layers were estimated as 16 ± 0.008 SE and 13 ± 0.014 SE

respectively. Prosopis cineraria was found to be the most dominant species with GBH of

individuals within class interval of mostly 70-90 cm followed by Pongamia pinnata,

Albizia lebbeck, Acacia nilotica and Azadirachta indica in descending order. Simultaneously

Prosopis cineraria was found the highest IVI value (96.84) for the entire study area

whereas for Balanites roxburghii the IVI value came out to be the lowest (0.17). Details of

IVI for all the tree species are discussed in table 14.

Results

46 | P a g e

Table 10. Estimated tree density on 10m x 10m quadrat at every 200m interval on each line transect in different

erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

Species / Study sites

Guda

Bishnoiyan Dechu Dhawa Jamba Lohawat Sathin Overall

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

Acacia nilotica 3.10 0.91 N.R. N.R. 9.18 1.59 0.30 0.02 2.54 0.84 4.66 1.10 3.26 0.74

Acacia senegal 0.24 0.24 1.51 0.67 0.17 0.17 N.R. N.R. 0.63 0.37 N.R. N.R. 0.20 0.24

Acacia tortilis N.R. N.R. 2.11 0.79 0.51 0.29 8.01 1.48 9.09 1.32 7.67 1.39 4.29 0.88

Albizia lebbeck N.R. N.R. 3.01 0.94 6.46 1.15 N.R. N.R. 7.40 1.20 6.30 1.27 4.02 0.76

Azadirachta indica 0.48 0.34 4.52 1.14 7.82 1.58 N.R. N.R. 7.19 1.19 1.10 0.55 3.26 0.80

Balanites egyptiaca 0.48 0.34 N.R. N.R. 0.17 0.17 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.12 0.08

Balanites roxburghii 0.24 0.24 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.04 0.04

Capparis decidua N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 8.01 1.48 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 5.45 0.25

Pongamia pinnata N.R. N.R. 3.01 0.94 7.14 1.37 N.R. N.R. 13.95 1.59 N.R. N.R. 4.69 0.65

Prosopis cineraria 29.12 2.42 26.51 2.43 7.48 1.09 7.42 1.43 14.59 1.62 22.74 2.23 12.49 1.87

prosopis juliflora 3.82 1.11 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.42 0.30 0.27 0.02 0.44 0.24

Salvadora oleoides 0.48 0.34 4.22 1.10 2.72 0.86 1.48 0.66 0.85 0.42 N.R. N.R. 1.67 0.56

Salvadora persica 1.91 0.67 7.23 1.42 11.56 1.91 0.89 0.51 N.R. N.R. 0.55 0.39 2.74 0.82

Tecomella undulata 1.91 0.67 0.90 0.52 15.65 2.19 5.04 1.19 0.42 0.30 2.47 0.81 4.21 0.95

Zizyphus jujube 0.48 0.34 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 4.66 1.17 0.64 0.25

Zizyphus mauritiana 4.77 1.15 3.92 1.07 5.44 1.00 N.R. N.R. 2.75 0.75 3.29 1.01 2.74 0.83

(D – Density per hectare; N.R. – Not Recorded; SE – Standard Error)

Results

47 | P a g e

Table 11. Estimated shrub density on 5m x 5m quadrat at every 200m interval on each line transect in different

erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

Species / Study sites

Guda

Bishnoiyan Dechu Dhawa Jamba Lohawat Sathin Overall

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

D

(ha-1) SE

Aerva javanica 3.82 2.70 314.46 30.43 213.92 42.39 1515.73 106.77 601.27 69.06 169.86 38.79 83.02 48.35

Balanites roxburghii 7.64 2.68 N.R. N.R. 3.40 1.79 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 9.86 4.22 2.86 1.45

Calotropis procera 110.74 17.57 220.48 27.68 140.58 17.08 144.81 21.72 145.45 13.95 107.40 16.56 71.09 19.09

Capparis decidua 130.79 16.17 37.35 6.84 86.93 8.82 98.52 16.58 43.97 7.10 52.60 11.70 47.55 11.20

Cassia angustifolia N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 102.33 24.27 N.R. N.R. 6.34 4.05

Cassia tora N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 4.23 1.05 N.R. N.R. 0.32 0.17

Crotalaria burhia N.R. N.R. 4.82 2.40 N.R. N.R. 5.93 3.13 136.15 8.81 77.81 8.30 38.01 3.77

Flacourtia seperia 1.91 1.91 N.R. N.R. 12.22 8.70 N.R. N.R. 8.46 2.65 N.R. N.R. 2.23 2.21

Leptadenia pyrotechnica N.R. N.R. 26.51 9.23 N.R. N.R. 54.60 11.13 21.99 8.15 78.90 20.70 11.61 8.20

Prosopis cineraria 1.91 1.91 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 1.16 0.32

Maytenus emerginata 391.41 45.77 60.24 13.24 100.51 16.54 16.62 7.46 61.73 12.49 135.89 29.53 42.78 20.84

Salvadora persica 2.86 2.13 N.R. N.R. 4.07 1.92 5.93 2.64 2.54 1.89 16.44 7.63 3.18 2.70

Zizyphus nummularia 105.97 21.87 14.46 5.34 61.80 8.58 74.78 12.42 21.14 5.85 176.44 29.49 33.72 13.92

(D – Density per hectare; N.R. – Not Recorded; SE – Standard Error)

Results

48 | P a g e

Table 12. Estimated species richness and diversity index for the tree layers analyzed

by program Estimate S in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

Sl.

No. Closed Area

Sobs

Richness

Standard

Error (SE)

Shannon

Mean

Chao

diversity

Standard

Error (SE)

1 Guda Bishnoiyan

- Fitkashni 12 0.033 1.42 12.2 0.03

2 Dechu 10 0.09 1.44 11.7 0.07

3 Doli-Dhawa 12 0.039 2.19 13.28 0.093

4 Jamba 7 0.0065 1.62 8.3 0.025

5 Lohawat 11 0.006 1.92 13 0.044

6 Sathin 10 0.03 1.77 11.3 0.013

7 Overall 16 0.0076 2.35 18.3 0.003

Table 13. Estimated species richness and diversity index for the shrub layers

analyzed by program Estimate S in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

Sl.

No. Closed Area

Sobs

Richness

Standard

Error (SE)

Shannon

Mean

Chao

diversity

Standard

Error (SE)

1 Guda Bishnoiyan

- Fitkashni 9 0.94 1.52 10.2 0.024

2 Dechu 7 0.23 1.32 7.5 0.03

3 Doli-Dhawa 8 0.08 1.66 9.2 0.062

4 Jamba 8 1.2 1.55 8.7 0.034

5 Lohawat 11 0.2 1.85 12.1 0.05

6 Sathin 9 0.15 1.97 9.7 0.032

7 Overall 13 0.0138 1.84 13.6 0.005

Results

49 | P a g e

Table 14. Estimated importance value index (IVI) for the tree layers analyzed by

program Estimate S across all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

Species / Parameters

Relative

Density

Relative

Frequency

Relative

Dominance IVI

Prosopis cineraria 31.48422 24.84177 40.51195 96.83794

Acacia tortilis 11.207 8.544304 6.13098 25.88229

Pongamia pinnata 8.187037 9.335443 7.916602 25.43908

Albizia lebbeck 8.084545 7.990506 7.818548 23.8936

Tecomella undulata 7.674549 8.386076 5.470403 21.53103

Capparis decidua 3.414752 10.83861 6.363214 20.61657

Azadirachta indica 6.602329 6.487342 6.770914 19.86058

Acacia nilotica 4.782903 6.487342 7.617278 18.88752

Salvadora persica 5.425749 5.458861 4.273107 15.15772

Zizyphus mauritiana 5.85815 5.458861 2.848738 14.16575

Salvadora oleoides 2.949599 3.322785 2.601022 8.873406

Zizyphus jujube 2.138627 1.265823 0.495433 3.899882

Prosopis juliflora 1.128487 0.870253 0.737988 2.736728

Acacia senegal 0.856023 0.39557 0.258038 1.509631

Balanites egyptiaca 0.159467 0.237342 0.13934 0.536149

Balanites roxburghii 0.046557 0.079114 0.046447 0.172118

Results

50 | P a g e

5.2 Marking of erstwhile closed areas in GIS domain

The exact boundaries of all the 98 villages which constituted the six erstwhile closed

areas were not available with the forest department during their notification period in

early 1980’s. Therefore, during this survey we recorded the latitude and longitude of

different important landmarks such as schools, hospitals, water points, banks, post

offices, forest chowkies, police stations etc. situated in each village with hand help

Garmin 72 GPS device. Wherever we could find the boundary pillars of the villages we

recorded those locations as well. Thereafter, those locations were plotted in GIS

domain, projected in UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) scale and finally joined to

prepare the periphery of each erstwhile closed areas. Separate maps were prepared

consisting of each of the geographical landmark recorded across the entire study area

(all the maps are enclosed as annexure at the end of the report Map 01-19).

5.3 Results of Socio-economic survey:

A total of 2470 households were surveyed during the study and 3366 people were

interviewed out of which 2984 (88.7%) were male and 382 (11.3%) were female

respondent. All the interviewees were above the age of 18 years. Except respondents of

guda Bishnoiyan and sathin closed areas, majority of interviewees from all other places

replied that the status of the oran (community land) around their villages was degraded

than past. Overall more than 60% respondents in the entire study area also opined the

Results

51 | P a g e

same. The comparative status of percentage response pattern on the issue of status of

oran is shown in figure 20.

On the issue of status of wildlife abundance nearly 70% (69.34%) from the entire study

area replied that it got deteriorated than the past 15 to 20 years. Except the interviewees

of Jamba, majority people from all other erstwhile closed areas opined in the same

pattern. The comparative status of percentage response pattern on the issue of status of

wildlife abundance in present w.r.t. the 15-20 years back across all the study sites is

shown in figure 21.

When the people who opined that the abundance of wildlife in present was reduced

than past days were further asked to indicate the probable cause of such degradation,

more than 57% of people blamed illegal hunting of the wildlife as the main reason.

Similar pattern of response were observed across all the six erstwhile closed areas.

Among other reasons of deterioration of wildlife status in the study area, issues such as

habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation due to modern agricultural practices and

accidents due to motor vehicles and domestic dogs were also reported by the

interviewees. The comparative percentage response pattern to indicate the probable

reasons of wildlife status deterioration in present time w.r.t. the earlier 15-20 years

period across all the study sites is shown in figure 22. Inversely, when the people who

opined that the abundance of wildlife in present got increased than past days were

Results

52 | P a g e

further asked to indicate the probable cause of such augmentation, more than 40% of

people replied more provision of food for the wild herbivores with the advancement of

agriculture as the main reason. Around 32% of such respondents also opined better

availability of water in Jodhpur district at present and more than 27% people thought

that with better protection measures from both community and government agencies

(forest and police department) had increased the abundance of wildlife in the study

area. Detail of percentage response pattern to indicate the probable reasons of wildlife

status augmentation is shown in figure 23.

In response to the issue of crop-raiding incidences by the wild herbivores, 88.5%

interviewees expressed their disappointment over it as a nuisance to their agricultural

practices whereas only six percent people accepted it as natural phenomenon and rest

five percent found it tolerable. The trend of response was identical across all the study

sites as it is shown in figure 24. When the interviewees were asked about how they have

felt for legal status of erstwhile closed areas, 68% people replied that they did not like

their surroundings to be declared as closed areas whereas only 11% of them accepted it

well and rest 20% people stayed neutral being unwilling to comment on this. The

patterns of the response on this issue across all the six erstwhile closed areas are shown

in figure 25.

Results

53 | P a g e

Results of our questionnaire survey revealed that 42% of the total interviewees reported

Indian grey wolf missing from their localities during the last decade while 40%

respondents described vultures as the most susceptible species towards local extinction.

Species such as hyena, jackal and Indian fox were also reported missing across the

entire study area by ten percent, five percent and two percent interviewees respectively.

The trend of responses in this issue across all the six erstwhile closed areas are shown in

figure 26.

Except Jamba and Lohawat areas, pigs were reported as the most problematic animal

followed by nilgai, chinkara, blackbuck and rats to damage the agricultural fields.

Overall 42.8% respondents replied pigs as most malicious animal while 38% reported

nilgai as most problematical animal towards crop production. The detail of response

pattern by the interviewees on this issue across all the study sites are given in figure 27.

The results of our survey showed that in the overall study area, 53% people were

prompt in rescuing the injured wildlife whereas 36.5% people took much time to decide

about the rescue operations. The rest ten percent people were found to be uninterested

in rescuing the injured animals. Amongst all the six study sites, highest proportion of

86% and 53% of all interviewees were keen to rescue the injured wildlife immediately in

Sathin and Lohawat areas respectively. The detail of the response regarding this issue

across all the study sites are shown in figure 28.

Results

54 | P a g e

Regarding the initiatives of eco-tourism as an option of simultaneous livelihood

generation for the local communities and conservation of wildlife, more than 50%

interviewees in the entire study area opposed such ideas as they feared that such

initiative might take away the grazing land of their domestic livestock. Around 31% of

the total respondents in the entire study area had agreed and welcome eco-tourism

initiatives as they thought it would increase their livelihood opportunities whereas rest

18.7% people stayed neutral to this issue. The details of the response patterns of the

interviewees across all the erstwhile closed areas are given in figure 29.

Finally when the interviewees were asked about their relationship with the forest

department, except respondents of Guda and Sathin areas, majority of the other four

erstwhile closed areas expressed their dissatisfaction stating that they did not have any

interactions with the local forest department authorities. Overall more than 57% of the

interviewees across all the six study sites expressed negative feedback regarding their

relationship with the forest department while 26.4% people had positive relationship

with the forest department. Rest 16% people had replied that they had an indifferent

relationship with the forest department. The details of the responses regarding this

issue across all the six study sites are shown in figure 30.

Results

55 | P a g e

Figure 20. Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of status of oran across

the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 21. Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of status of wildlife

across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Results

56 | P a g e

Figure 22. Estimated percentage response pattern on the reasons of wildlife depletion

across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 23. Estimated percentage response pattern on the reasons of wildlife

rejuvenation across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Results

57 | P a g e

Figure 24. Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of crop-raiding by wild

herbivores across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 25. Estimated percentage response pattern on the legal status of erstwhile

closed areas in Jodhpur

Results

58 | P a g e

Figure 26. Estimated percentage response pattern on the decline of major wildlife

species across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 27. Estimated percentage response pattern on the major problematic wildlife

species across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Results

59 | P a g e

Figure 28. Estimated percentage response pattern on the reaction time in wildlife

rescue across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 29. Estimated percentage response pattern on the initiatives of eco-tourism in

community conservation areas across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Results

60 | P a g e

Figure 30. Estimated percentage response pattern on the relationship between forest

department and local community across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

6. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Ecological Issues

The present study is a preliminary scientific base line survey conducted in short

period (two months) to understand the abundance, distribution of the herbivores (wild

and domestic) using distance sampling based line transects, vegetation quadrats to

evaluate their habitat conditions and also the perception of local communities towards

erstwhile closed areas and to assess the potentials for future conversion to community

conserved areas or look at other aspects vital for conservation of biological value in

these areas.

The estimated Abundance of wild ungulate species in the study area is quite high

having almost no well established protection mechanism in place. The density and

diversity of both tree and shrub layers in this arid ecosystem was naturally much less

than it was estimated in the semi-arid landscape of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Alwar,

Rajasthan by Kidwai 2013. The official census data of Jodhpur during last 20 years and

rescue operation data of last seven years showed decline and high rate of mortality in

the wild herbivore population (Table 15 and 16). Therefore, within naturally low

productive desert ecosystem if this trend continues, the future will be very bleak for

the wildlife in this region. Studies such as Dookia 2009 and Dutta et al. 2014 also

showed the similar concern of population decline in wild ungulates of desert

ecosystem as well as rapid reduction in natural habitats.

61 |P a g e

Discussion and recommendations

62 | P a g e

During this study it was recorded that the natural habitats of desert wild ungulates in

both Guda Bishnoiyan and Doli-Dhawa erstwhile closed areas were converted into

commercial and residential complexes under the urbanization projects of Jodhpur

Development Authority (JDA). The rural areas in this district are getting converted to

urban colonies at a fast pace and is affecting the very survival of these closed areas.

With the agricultural advancements and extraction of ground water with powerful

bore wells and pump sets, the cropping pattern of desert is getting changed from one

crop in monsoon (kharif) to both ravi (winter) and kharif crop patterns. Therefore,

many of the private land owners started erecting tall barbwire fencing around their

crop field to protect from crop-raiding incidences. Wherever the ground water is sweet

(non-saline) in nature, tall barbwire fencing is a common phenomenon (maximum

observed in Lohawat, Dechu and Sathin areas) causing landscape fragmentation and

permanent restriction in the movement and feeding patterns of the wild ungulates

leaving very little space for them to survive.

Therefore, as a blessing in disguise, wherever the underground water is saline (in

Guda Bishnoiyan, Dhawa and Jamba areas) the crop pattern is still single (only

monsoon – kharif crops) and subsequently agricultural fields are non-fenced. Thus,

landscape continuity is not broken down for the movements, reproduction and feeding

activities of the wild herbivores of desert.


63 | P a g e

Four species of wild canids (Indian grey wolf, golden jackal, Indian fox and desert fox)

and one lesser cat (desert cat) species are found in Jodhpur district whose ecology,

behavior or population status were never studied. Long term studies should be

designed to understand the ecology of these data deficient wild carnivores and their

interaction with the surrounding environment.

6.2 Social Issues

As per the socio-economic survey results, local communities pointed out illegal hunting

practice as one of the major reasons of deterioration of wildlife population in Jodhpur

along with habitat destruction and fragmentation. In spite of community prohibition,

sporadic hunting events of blackbuck and chinkara are still occurring in places where

majority of non-vegetarian communities are residing.

Official records of Jodhpur wildlife division further showed that the threat of group

hunting incidences of wild ungulates from domestic pet dogs of the agrarian

communities and other stray dogs in the village is increasing during last decade. But

rural people in some of the areas specifically in Guda Bishnoiyan, Doli-Dhawa and

Jamba areas are still in support of conserving these wild herbivores.

More than 42% respondents in the entire study area replied that their agricultural crops

are heavily damaged by pigs. Some opined it as wild pigs and some as farm pigs. This

issue should be critically addressed to reveal the genetic identification of these pigs to

understand their legal status so that proper management interventions can be executed.


64 | P a g e

More than 57% of the respondents across the entire study area replied that their

relationship with forest department is not satisfactory and they have not received any

kind of awareness exposure or conservation dialogue from the concerned authorities of

forest department.

During our field work we recorded presence of one or two forest guards in each of

these closed areas. Compared to the vast geographical area, these closed areas are

highly understaffed, probably this may be main reason for lack of any meaningful

dialogue or communication with the local communities. After 2003 Wildlife protection

Act amendment forest department did not have any management role of these closed

areas, except for occasional animal rescue tasks. Therefore, periodic meetings of

apposite authorities of forest department with the rural communities and workshops or

field exposures on wildlife conservation should be held at least in the priority sites to

increase the awareness and gain conservation support from the local community.

6.3 Closed area wise recommendations

Guda Bishnoiyan – Large areas of community lands (oran and gauchar) are

available in Bisalpur, Rudekli and Guda Bishnoi villages under this erstwhile closed

area. The status of wildlife in this area is still favorable but conversion of land use is a

major threat in this area. The potential areas should be conserved as Conservation

Reserve (CR) or Community Conservation Reserve (CCR) for long term survival of the

desert wildlife.


65 | P a g e

Sathin – Presence of Indian grey wolf was recorded near Burchha and Sargiya

khurd villages of this erstwhile closed area. Large areas of community lands (oran and

gauchar) are available near these villages as well.

Jamba – Large population of desert fox is present in this erstwhile closed area.

The local bishnoi community are willing to support wildlife conservation activities.

Potential community lands (oran and gauchar) are available near chakhu, motai and

balasar villages under this closed area which can be developed as CR or CCR.

Lohawat – all year long agricultural practices within fenced private lands have

fragmented the natural landscape. Incidences of wildlife injury and mortality is also

quite high in this erstwhile closed area. Still there are potential habitats left in Bhakari,

Jeriya and Munjasar villages to support long term survival of desert wildlife.

Dechu – Extension of fenced private lands are maximum in this area resulting in

reduction in wild herbivore population. Yet, Lodta hirada sot, Thadiya and sagran

villages in this erstwhile closed area has potential for long term wildlife conservation.

The Thadiya village is an ideal area to study the ecology of spiny tailed lizard.

Doli Dhawa – the most potential erstwhile closed area among all six in Jodhpur

as per the wild herbivore population, availability of natural habitats and conservation

support from community as well. The salinity of ground water does not allow year long

agriculture therefore possibility of landscape fragmentation is least. The only threat is

the expansion of Jodhpur city under the projects of JDA. Hirno ka tanka area,


66 | P a g e

community areas in Godawas and Chicharli villages in this erstwhile closed area can be

the potential places for developing CR or CCR.

6.4 General Recommendations for management practices across all closed areas:

Deployment of frontline staff is the major step for any management initiatives. But

during the study, severe dearth of deputation and allocation of front line staff in each of

the closed areas was observed compared to any protected area of India. It was observed

that the wildlife monitoring work for the entire Jodhpur district (22,500 km2 area) was

managed by just one range officer. Recruitment of more front line staff should be

carried out to rectify the inadequacy in administrative system.

A detailed long term follow up study has to be carried out to understand the effect of

habitat parameters and development projects on the desert ecosystem and finally site

specific action plans should be designed to conserve the potential habitats and the

existing wildlife under proper legal framework of CR or CCR.

Development of infrastructure for better treatment and cure of the rescued wildlife is

also a need of this area. Engagement of veterinary practitioners and development of

animal shelters are highly required. The induction process of the under-developed

rescue centre in Khejadli village of Guda Bishnoiyan closed area should be given

highest priority and pursued earliest possible.

The annual wildlife census techniques (waterhole census) used by the Jodhpur

wildlife division is quite out dated. Initiation of science based wildlife monitoring


67 | P a g e

census operation (distance sampling based line transect) and capacity building

programs should be organized to revise the skills of the front line staff.

The forest department should organize periodic conservation awareness camps

involving all the target groups (adult male, students and ladies) from the local

communities and start dialogue process with them, so that whatever wildlife surviving

in these erstwhile closed areas can be saved.

Table 15. Official census results (water hole count) of wildlife carried out by the

wildlife division of Jodhpur district during last 20 years

Sl. No. Year Blackbuck Chinkara Nilgai Wolf Fox jackal

1 1995 3173 2707 548 11 14 17

2 1996 3426 5449 348 2 14 19

3 1997 3308 3644 723 3 32 30

4 1998 3873 5768 781 11 31 87

5 1999 3565 7336 1348 11 56 70

6 2000 0 0 98 8 0 61

7 2001 NR NR NR NR NR NR

8 2002 8927 36513 3186 179 633 3

9 2003 2307 5333 266 0 59 0

10 2004 3888 7454 589 9 20 118

11 2005 2488 9495 806 4 105 NR

12 2006 NR NR NR NR NR NR

13 2007 1305 3659 323 3 37 56

14 2008 1354 3956 465 0 27 17

15 2009 1126 3489 498 5 16 115

16 2010 1197 4463 701 1 24 96

17 2011 1883 7682 1087 2 13 137

18 2012 2784 7806 1848 0 50 76

19 2013 2795 7824 1859 2 35 84

20 2014 2117 5190 1420 7 63 99

(NR – Not Recorded)


68 | P a g e

Table 16. Official records of the rescued injured wildlife (mainly herbivores) and

their subsequent fate after treatment by the wildlife division of Jodhpur district

during last seven years

Sl.

No. Period

Total Rescued

wildlife (herbivores)

No. of animals

survived

No. of

animals died

1 April 2008 -

March 2009 362 70 292

2 April 2009 -

March 2010 621 114 507

3 April 2010 -

March 2011 1008

216 792

4 April 2011 -

March 2012 678 236 442

5 April 2012 -

March 2013 862 238 624

6 April 2013 -

March 2014 641 139 502

7 April 2014 -

January 2015 907 178 729

Total 5079 1191 3888

LITERATURE CITED

Bagchi S. Goyal S.P. and Sankar K. 2003. Prey abundance and prey selection by tigers

(Panthera tigris) in a semi-arid, dry deciduous forest in western India. Journal of

Zoology (London). 260, pp. 285-290.

Bhattacharjee S. 2014. Prey selection, ranging pattern and habitat utilization of the

reintroduced tigers (Panthera tigris tigris L.) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, western India.

PhD Thesis submitted to Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat. June 2014.

Biswas S. and Sankar K. 2002. Prey abundance and food habits of tigers (Panthera tigris

tigris) in Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Zoology (London). 256, pp.

411-420.

Buckland S.T., Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P. and Laake, J.L. 1993. Distance Sampling:

Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall, London. pp. 446.

Buckland S.T., Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P., Laake J.L., Borchers D.L., and Thomas L.

2001. Introduction to Distance Sampling. London: Oxford University Press.

Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R., and Laake J.L. 1980. Estimation of density from line

transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monographs 72, pp. 1-202.

Chao A. 1984. Non-parametric estimation of the number of classes in a population.

Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 11, pp. 265–270.

Colwell R.K. and Coddington J.A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through

extrapolation. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 345,

pp. 101-118.

Colwell R. 1997. Estimates: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species

from samples. Version 7.5. User’s guide and application published online.

[URL:http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates]

Colwell R.K., Mao C.X. and Chang J. 2004. Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing

incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology, 85, pp. 2717–2727.

69 |P a g e

Literature cited

70 | P a g e

Cox G. 1990. Laboratory manual of general ecology 6th Ed. Dubuque, Iowa: WIlliam C.

Brown.

Curtis J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. In: An Ordination of Plant Communities,

Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Dookia S. 2009. Conservation of Indian Gazelle or Chinkara through community

support in Thar Desert of Rajasthan, India.

Dutta S., Bhardwaj G.S., Bhardwaj D.K., Jhala Y.V. 2014. Status of Great Indian Bustard

and Associated Wildlife in Thar. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun and Rajasthan

Forest Department, Jaipur.

Harihar A., Pandav B and Goyal S.P. 2009. Density of leopard (Panthera pardus) in

Chilla Range of Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand, India. Mammalia 73, pp. 68-71.

IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

<www.iucnredlist.org>.

Karanth K.U. and Sunquist M.E. 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in

tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64, pp. 439-450.

Kent M. and Coker P. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis, A Practical Approach.

John Wiley and Sons, NY, pp. 167-169.

Khan J.A., Chellam R., Rodgers W.A., and Johnsingh A.J.T. 1996. Ungulate Densities

and Biomass in the Tropical Dry Deciduous Forests of Gir, Gujarat, India. Journal of

Tropical Ecology 12, pp. 149-162.

Kidwai Z. 2013. Vegetation structure and composition in core area of Sariska National

Park, Rajasthan. Indian Forester, 139 (7), pp. 636-644.

Menon V. 2014. Indian Mammals. A field Guide. Hachette Book Publishing India Pvt.

Ltd. Gurgaon, India.

Pandeya S.C., Sharma S.C., Jain H.K., Pathak S.J., Palimal K.C., Bhanot V.M., 1977. The

Environment and Cenchrus Grazing Lands in Western India. Final Report.

Department of Biosciences, Saurasthra University, Rajkot, India.

Literature cited

71 | P a g e

R Development Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In

R Development Core Team 2006 Vienna, Austria: R Development Core

Team http://www.R-project.org

Ramesh M. and Ishwar N.M., 2008. Status and distribution of the Indian spiny-tailed

lizard Uromastyx hardwickii in the Thar Desert, western Rajasthan., pp. 48. Group for

Nature Preservation and Education, India.

Rodgers W.A., Panwar H.S., Mathur V.B., 2002. Wildlife Protected Area Network in

India: A Review (Executive Summary). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

Sankar K., and Johnsingh A. J. T., 2002. Food habits of tiger (Panthera tigris) and leopard

(Panthera pardus) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India, as shown by scat

analysis. Mammal 66(2), pp. 285-289.

Seber G. A. F., 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters.

Second ed. Macmillan Publ. Co. Inc., New York, USA. pp. 654.

Schaller G. B., 1967. The Deer and the Tiger. A study of Wildlife in India. The University

of Chicago Press, Chicago. pp. 370.

Sikka, D.R., 1997. Desert Climate and its Dynamics. Current Science 72, 35-46.

Stoen O.G. and Wegge P. 1996. Prey selection and prey removal by tiger (Panthera tigris)

during the dry season in lowland Nepal. Mammalia 60, pp.363–373

The Wildlife Protection Act 1972. Amendment 2013. Ministry of Environment and

Forests.

Thomas L., Laake J., Rexstad E., Strindberg S., Marques F., Buckland S., Borchers D.,

Anderson D., Burnham K., Burt M., Hedley S., Pollard J., Bishop J. and Marques T.,

2009. Distance 6.0. Release 1.

Working plan Jodhpur 2013-14 to 2022-23. Forest Division Jodhpur. Prepared by Mr. M.

S. Rathore. Directed by Mr. S. K. Jain and Mr. A. K. Singh. Project advisor Mr. A. C.

Chaubey, PCCF, Department of Forests, Government of Rajasthan.

Annexure

72 | P a g e

ANNEXURE I

Map 1. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Banks)

Map 2. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Electricity

structures)

Annexure

73 | P a g e

Map 3. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Forest

Department structures)

Map 4. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Health

Facilities)

Annexure

74 | P a g e

Map 5. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Panchayat

Facilities)

Map 6. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Police

stations)

Annexure

75 | P a g e

Map 7. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Post

Offices)

Map 8. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Railway

station)

Annexure

76 | P a g e

Map 9. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Religious

places)

Map 10. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area

(Education facilities)

Annexure

77 | P a g e

Map 11. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (water

sources)

Annexure

78 | P a g e

ANNEXURE II

Plate 1. Blackbuck bachelors’ herd of at Dhawa Plate 2. Blackbuck females at a water body in Guda

Plate 3. Chinkara females with fawns at Sathin Plate 4. Male chinkara in Bhakari Lohawat

Annexure

79 | P a g e

Plate 5. Nilgai herd spotted at Dhawa Plate 6. Nilgai females in Dechu

Plate 7. Pigs spotted at Dhawa Plate 8. Boar spotted in Sathin

Annexure

80 | P a g e

Plate 9. Desert fox in Jamba Plate 10. Desert fox in Sathin

Plate 11. Golden jackal in Fitkashini Guda Plate 12. Golden jackal in Dhawa

Plate 13. Desert gerbil in Lohawat Plate 14. Desert gerbil Dechu

Annexure

81 | P a g e

Plate 15. Demoiselle crane at a water body near Guda Plate 16. Long-legged buzzard spotted at Sathin

Plate 17. Black crowned sparrow lark at Lohawat Plate 18. Lesser flamingo at Dhawa

Plate 19. Shikra spotted in Lohawat Plate 20. Cinereous vulture and Eurasian

griffon in Jamba

Annexure

82 | P a g e

Plate 21. Bhakad (hills) of Phinch village in Dhawa Closed area

Plate 22. Rohida habitat (Tecomella undulata) near Chichadli village in Dhawa Closed area

Plate 23. Hilly habitat near Rathkuria village in Sathin Closed area

Plate 24. Oran (Community land) of Rudekli village in Guda Closed area

Annexure

83 | P a g e

Plate 25. Questionnaire survey in Dhawa Plate 26. Questionnaire survey in Jamba

Plate 27. Questionnaire survey in Guda Plate 28. Questionnaire survey in Sathin

Annexure

84 | P a g e

ANNEXURE III

Project Title: Ecological Status survey of the erstwhile Closed Areas of the district of Jodhpur, Rajasthan

Data Sheet for Distance Sampling of Prey Species on Line transect (Data sheet no: 01 / Closed areas / GOR) Transect ID: Observers: Weather condition:

Transect Length: Date: Start GPS: End GPS:

Transect Bearing: Start time: End time: Village name and Tehsil:

Sl. No.

Species Total no. of animals Sighting Angle

(degree)

Walk Bearing (degree)

Angular sighting distance (Meter)

Major Vegetation

Type* (10 m radius)

Major Terrain Type**

(10 m radius)

Remarks / GPS Locations of wild herbivores and small –

medium wild carnivores (whenever sighted)

M F JU UNID TOTAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Species to be recorded: Nilgai, Chinkara, Black buck, Wild pig, Hare, Common Langur, Rhesus Macaque, Livestock – Cattle, Buffalo, Goat, Sheep, Camel, donkey etc., Peafowl and

Francolins and any other large birds. M - male, F - Female, JU - Juvenile, UNID – Unidentified *Vegetation type: 1) Acacia mixed forest, 2) Prosopis cineraria (Khejri) dominated forests, 3) Prosopis juliflora

thickets and 4) Scrub land **Terrain type: 1) Flat, 2) Gentle slope, 3) Sand dunes, 4) Rocky areas.

Annexure

85 | P a g e


Vegetation and disturbance data sheet on a quadrat of 10M x 10M at every 200M of each line transect (Data sheet no: 02 / Closed areas / GOR)

Observer: LT ID: Date: Time: Village and Tehsil:

Sampling

plot no.

Tree species

(Quadrat of 10M x 10M)

Shrub species

(Quadrat of 10M x 10M)

Lopping

(Quadrat of 10M x

10M)

Wood cutting

(Quadrat of 10M x

10M)

Pellet of wild

Herbivores

(2m x 20m)

Remarks

GPS location of the

sampling point

Species No. Use Tally Marks

and GBH (cm)

Species No. Use Tally Marks Species and no. Use

Tally Marks

Species and no. Use

Tally Marks

Species and no. Use

Tally Marks

*Vegetation type: 1) Acacia mixed forest, 2) Prosopis cineraria (Khejri) dominated forests, 3) Prosopis juliflora thickets and 4) Scrub land **Terrain type: 1) Flat, 2) Gentle slope, 3) Sand dunes, 4)

Rocky areas.

Annexure

86 | P a g e

Questionnaire Survey to assess Ecological Status of the erstwhile Closed Areas of the district of Jodhpur,

Rajasthan (To be carried out among 2% adult population (> 18 years of age) of each village)

1. Name of the respondent:

2. Father / Husband’s name:

3. Age and sex:

4. Address: Village and Tehsil name:

5. Education: a. Illiterate, b. Primary, c. Secondary (X), d. Senior secondary (XII), e. College / University

6. Area of the land owned and land quality whether fertile lands or unfertile:

7. Which and how much crops do you grow in a year?

8. Livestock holding (Species and no.)

9. Feeding practice of the livestock: a) Stall feeding, b) Free grazing, c) guarded grazing, d) any other

10. Source of livelihood: a) Agriculture, b) Animal husbandry, c) Employment/ Labour work, d)Other specify

11. Do you know about any Oran near your village? Yes / No If yes – name and app. Area

12. Status of the known Oran – a) Getting better, b) As it is or c) Degraded than past

13. Status of agriculture in present days - a) Reduced, b) As it is or c) Increased

14. Past irrigation measures:

15. Present irrigation measure: Bore well / canal / other – specify -

16. Major wildlife species seen in the present around the village and its’ effect on rural life –

17. Wildlife species missing in the present or severely declined in no. –

18. Change in wildlife status - a) Getting better, b) As it is or c) Declined than past

19. What are the probable indicators of change?

20. Do you know about any hunting incident in this region? (yes / no) if yes describe briefly

21. How is the relation with forest department? a) poor, b) Fair or c) Good

22. Are you aware of the problem of wild herbivores getting stuck in artificial fencing? Yes / no if yes

23. What do you think about artificial fencing? a) It’s highly required, b) It’s ok or c) It’s not required

24. How do you react to rescue any injured wild animal? a) immediately, b) after a while or c) never

25. Do you know about Eco-tourism initiatives? Yes / no if yes is it good / fair / bad

26. What do you think about crop raiding? a) It’s well accepted, b) It’s tolerable or c) It’s a nuisance

27. Are you aware of the earlier status of closed areas? Yes / no if yes was it accepted as good / fair / bad

28. Can anything be done to develop this area for wildlife conservation?

29. Any other remark on mintaining the ecological / cultural values of this area –

Name of the interviewer: Date

Annexure

87 | P a g e


Factual data sheet for GPS locations and descriptions of the geographical features in each village of Closed

areas in Jodhpur (Data Sheet no: 03 / Closed areas / GOR)

Observer: Date: Village and Tehsil:

Sl no. Geographical Features GPS location (Lat and Long) Brief Description

1 School (s)

2 Panchayat Bhawan

3 Hand pump (s)

4 Well (s)

5 Religious place (s)

6 Historical monument / Ruin

7 Bank / Post Office

8 Water hole / pond / tank

9 Village boundary pillar (s)

10 Electric Pillar (s)

11 Forest Department Property

12 Police or Railway Station (s)

13 Any other important structure

Bhattacharjee, S., Kidwai, Z., Bhattarai, S., Bajpai, H., Rathore, M.S. and Reddy, G.V. 2015.

Ecological assessment of the erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur district, Rajasthan. Technical

report, March 2015, submitted to Department of Forests, Government of Rajasthan. pp – 87

Date post:	12-Aug-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	subhadeep-bhattacharjee
View:	123 times
Download:	5 times

JODHPUR CLOSED AREAS_FINAL REPORT_MARCH 2015

Documents