ISSN 1027-2992

CATnewsN° 56 | SPRING 2012

CATnews 56 Spring 2012

02

CATnews is the newsletter of the Cat Specialist Group, a component of the Species Survival Commission SSC of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It is pub-lished twice a year, and is available to members and the Friends of the Cat Group.

For joining the Friends of the Cat Group please contact Christine Breitenmoser at ch.breitenmoser@kora.ch

Original contributions and short notes about wild cats are welcome Send contributions and observations to ch.breitenmoser@kora.ch.

Guidelines for authors are available at www.catsg.org/catnews

CATnews is produced with financial assistance from Friends of the Cat Group.

Design: barbara surber, werk’sdesign gmbhLayout: Christine Breitenmoser Print: Stämpfli Publikationen AG, Bern, Switzerland ISSN 1027-2992

Editors: Christine & Urs Breitenmoser Co-chairs IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group KORA, Thunstrasse 31, 3074 Muri, Switzerland Tel ++41(31) 951 90 20 Fax ++41(31) 951 90 40 <urs.breitenmoser@ivv.unibe.ch> <ch.breitenmoser@kora.ch> Contributing Editor: Peter Jackson 7 Lake Close, London SW19 7EG United Kingdom Tel/Fax: ++44 (20) 89 47 01 59 <peterfr.jackson@virgin.net>

Associate Editors: Keith Richmond Brian Bertram Sultana Bashir Javier Pereira

Cover Photo: Persian leopard in Bafgh, Iran Photo DoE Iran/CACP/UNDP/ ICS/Panthera

The designation of the geographical entities in this publication, and the representation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

CATnews 56 Spring 2012

JIMMY BORAH1*, TRIDIP SHARMA1, DHRITIMAN DAS2, NILMANI RABHA2, NIRAJ KAKATI2, AJIT BASUMATRI3, FIROZ AHMED3, JOSEPH VATTAKAVEN4, CHITTARANJAN BHOBORA5 AND ANINDYA SWARGOWARI5

Diversity of carnivores in Ma-nas National Park - a World Heritage Site, Assam, IndiaManas National Park in Assam, India, is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and part of an Indian Tiger Reserve, Elephant Reserve and Biosphere Reserve. During late 1980’s & 1990’s it faced tremendous anthropogenic pressure due to ethnic agitation in the area resulting in large scale destruction of the forest and its wildlife. However, after the resolution of this agitation, Manas is on its way back to normalcy. Camera trapping surveys that were conducted to determine tiger and prey status also helped in obtaining the first detailed baseline data of carnivores in the park in the post-conflict period. Here we present information obtained on major carnivore’s presence in Manas. We recommend more research based studies to understand the existing carnivore diversity and to understand whether any management interventions aimed at tigers affects other carnivore species.

Large mammals play critical roles within eco-systems and are vulnerable to human impact and extinction (Morrison et al. 2007). Carni-vores, as top predators, strongly shape eco-logical interactions in biological communities and therefore play a critical role in maintai-ning their structure and diversity (Terborgh et al. 2001, Steneck 2005). In many terrestrial ecosystems, mammalian carnivores also serve as flagship species in the conservation of biodiversity (Caro & O’Doherty 1999). The minimum knowledge needed for the effective management of such mammals within pro-tected areas includes knowing what species are present, their distribution within the area,

and their relative abundance across different habitat types (Sheng et al. 2010).Manas National Park (MNP), a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is situated in the state of Assam, India, between 26° 30' and 27° 00' N and 90° 50' and 92° 00' E covering an area of around 500 km2. It is located on the borders of the Indo-Gangetic and Indo-Ma-layan bio-geographical realms and is one of the most diverse of India’s wildlife reserves. MNP is the core area of the larger Manas Ti-ger Reserve (MTR), which also includes the Ripu-Chirang Elephant Reserve and Manas Reserve Forest. MNP and Royal Manas Na-tional Park (RMNP) in Bhutan form an inte-

grated natural landscape, with the northern boundary of MNP in India being contiguous with the southern boundary of RMNP (Fig. 1). This unique landscape, comprising of around 1500 km2, represents immense diversity rang-ing from tropical grasslands at 40 to 150 m through subtropical forest at 300 m to warm broad-leaved forest above 1,000 m reaching up to 2,000 m. The combined complex is cha-racterized by its rich and unique biodiversity as well as its spectacular scenic attributes created by the meandering river, forested hills, alluvial grasslands and tropical ever-green forests. MNP lies on a gentle alluvial slope in the foothills of the Himalayas, where wooded hills give way to grasslands and tro-pical forest and is home to a great variety of wildlife, including many endangered species such as the tiger Panthera tigris, the pygmy hog Porcula salvania and the Asian elephant Elephas maximus (Source: www.unep-wcmc.org). The park provides habitat for 22 of India’s most threatened species of mammals listed in Schedule-I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, besides a several other endangered species (Deb Roy 1991). Camera trapping is known to be a quantita-tive technique that has comparatively low labour costs, is non-invasive, incurs minimal environmental disturbance (Henschel & Ray 2003, Silveira et al. 2003), is robust to vari-ation in ground conditions and climate and, above all, can be used to gain information on highly cryptic species and in difficult terrain where other field methods are likely to fail (Karanth & Nichols 1998, O’Brien et al. 2003, Silveira et al. 2003). Furthermore, camera traps are equally efficient at collecting data by day and night and provide the opportunity to collect additional information on species distribution and habitat use (Henschel & Ray 2003, Silveira et al. 2003), population structu-re and behaviour (Silveira et al. 2003, Wegge et al. 2004). We carried out camera trapping as a part of an All India Tiger monitoring exercise to de-termine the relative abundance of tigers and potential prey species in MNP (Jhala et al. 2011, Borah et al. in prep.), which also provi-ded data on the occurrence of other carnivore species. Our aim of presenting this data is to discuss the presence of major carnivores and to provide recommendations to facilitate the conservation of these species in MNP.

MethodThe study was carried out from November 2010 to February 2011. We used CUDDE-Fig. 1. Map of MNP (study site) along with the larger MTR, India and RMNP, Bhutan.

16

original contribution

CATnews 56 Spring 2012

Fig. 2a. Tiger Fig. 2b. Clouded leopard

Fig. 2c. Black panther (melanistic leopard) Fig. 2d. Leopard

Fig. 2e. Leopard cat Fig. 2f. Jungle cat

Fig. 2g. Golden jackal Fig. 2h. Dhole

17

carnivores in Manas National Park

CATnews 56 Spring 2012

BACK (Non Typical, Inc. Wisconsin), TRAIL-MASTER (Goodson and associates, Inc., Kansas), Panthera Camera Trap V3 (Panthera, USA) and CEDT (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore) camera trap units for the study. The time delay between photographs was set to the minimum in respective cameras. We kept all the cameras operational for 24 hours a day except in cases of malfunction or damage caused by elephants. Cameras were deployed in 75 locations in a 2 x 2 km grid size with one pair of camera traps in each grid, within the MNP, covering 300 km2 of the area. The survey was, therefore, designed to cover the study area homogeneously to maxi-mize the chance of photographing all animals present in the area (Karanth & Nichols 1998). All camera units were mounted on trees, on poles or in steel cages made specifically for the cameras. The cameras were placed 3-4 m on either side of a path or trail, with the sensor or infrared beam set at 20-40 cm from the ground. The cameras were checked daily by a team of researchers deployed in diffe-rent camps at MNP. The daily checking routi-ne was done to check whether any cameras were damaged by elephants as well as to ensure that the cameras were functioning properly. Although the same camera loca-tions were maintained throughout the study duration, we shifted the cameras 100-200 m from the original location whenever signs of trap shyness were seen.

Result and discussionWe photo captured all the major carnivores (Fig. 2, 3) from MNP during the survey com-prising of 3,591 camera trap days. Due to the absence of any previous estimates of the carnivore abundances using camera traps, we try to present diverse carnivore presence from post conflict period to gain insights on the ongoing restorations and recovery inter-ventions and processes. A total of 3 families representing 7 genera comprising 9 species of carnivores were photo captured during the study. Beside tiger and leopard Panthera pardus, which have been photographed be-fore, we present images of the rare clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa, leopard cat Prio-nailurus bengalensis, jungle cat Felis chaus, dhole Cuon alpinus and sloth bear Melursus ursinus, as well as the first picture documen-tation of other major carnivores, which inclu-des black panther (melanistic leopard) and Himalayan black bear Ursus thibetanus from MNP. Apparently the camera trap picture of Himalayan black bear in this study is poten-

tially noteworthy as this is the first time that it has been recorded in MNP contrary to Deb Roy (1991) who said that the Himalayan black bear are found on the Bhutan side of Manas and don't descend to the plains on the India side. Out of the 9 species photo captured, 2 (tiger and dhole) are classified as Endangered, 3 (clouded leopard, Himalayan black bear and sloth bear) are classified as Vulnerable while leopard is classified as Near Threatened, as per the IUCN Red List data (IUCN 2011). We think some regional ecological settings could be playing a role in the assemblage of such diverse carnivores in MNP, which necessi-tates further research. Previous studies on tigers and sympatric carnivores have looked into behavioural factors and patterns of prey selection to infer the mechanisms facilita-ting their coexistence (Johnsingh 1992, Ka-ranth & Sunquist 1995, 2000, Wang & Mac-donald 2009, Wegge et al. 2009). Therefore studies such as determining the carnivores' abundance in relation to prey and habitat, spatial distribution and habitat suitability of the carnivores in MNP would facilitate better understanding of these carnivore assembla-ges. It has been seen that although conside-rable conservation investments are directed towards recovering tiger populations (Wals-ton et al. 2010), such efforts rarely take into account the possible cascading effects on other sympatric carnivores. The forests of the MTR in western Assam, India have been threatened by insurgency problems and illegal logging since the early 1990s. In the last 10-15 years approximate-ly one third to one half of the three Reserve Forests within the tiger reserve, viz., Ripu, Chirang, and Manas, have been defores-ted. The MTR as a whole remains intact, although the buffer zone has suffered many encroachments, especially between San-kosh River in the far west and the Manas river, which have led to fragmentation of the forest. About 15 km2 in the Panbari Reserve Forests (the western core zone of the Park) have been illegally settled since 1973. There is no buffer to the south, and village com-munities on the edge collect resources like grasses, fuel, wood, fodder, timber and graze their livestock in the Park. Villagers believe that these uses are theirs by right, which have been denied to them since the desig-nation of the Tiger Reserve in 1973 (WWF 1993). These Reserve Forests and the RMNP of Bhutan that borders to the north are one of the potential habitats for large umbrella spe-

cies like tiger in India and Bhutan. However, with recent positive efforts from Government agencies including forest department and in-volvement of various Non-Governmental or-ganizations and local communities, wildlife populations including carnivores are recover-ing well, which otherwise was affected as a consequence of the ethnic agitation (Boojh et al. 2011). There also have been develop-ments recently for an emerging system and agreement of trans-boundary joint protection and management regime, which would be implemented jointly with Bhutan. Since the forests of Bhutan, contiguous to Manas, pro-vide critical corridors for movement of large animals, and act as a safe refuge for the ani-mals during disturbance and conflicts in Indi-an part owing to higher population and deve-lopmental pressures, the understanding for a joint Transboundary system is noteworthy. We also recommend that more intensive studies should be carried out to understand the nature of competitive interactions among these carnivores in particular and other wild-life in general, which also must be a prere-quisite for designing effective strategies to enhance the conservation of the carnivores in MNP. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support provided by Range Officers P. K. Brahma and L. Ramchiary and are grateful to following persons for assis-ting in field: Sushila Basumatari, Manoj Kalita, Rehman Khan, Jamir Ali, Yusuf Khan, Bipul Nath, Upen Deka, Bhabananda Roy, Tulen Barman, Manas Rabha, Arif Hussain, Bedabrata Sinha, Kamal Azad and Bibhuti P. Lahkar. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for providing useful comments on earlier versions of this ma-nuscript.

ReferencesBoojh R., Mainka S. & Van Merm R. 2011. Ma-

nas Wildlife Sanctuary (India): Joint IUCN/UNESCO Reactive Monitoring Mission. Mis-sion Report. 40 pp.

Caro T. & O’Doherty G. 1999. On the use of surro-gate species in conservation biology. Conser-vation Biology 13, 805–814.

Deb Roy S. 1991. Manas - A monograph. Tiger-paper 18, 10 pp.

Henschel P. & Ray J. 2003. Leopards in African Rainforests: Survey and Monitoring Tech-niques. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY.

IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

18

Borah et al.

CATnews 56 Spring 2012

Jhala Y. V., Qureshi Q., Gopal R. and Sinha P. R. 2011. Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India, 2010. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. TR 2011/003 pp-302.

Johnsingh A. 1992. Prey selection in three large sympatric carnivores in Bandipur. Mammalia 56, 517-526.

Karanth K. U. & Sunquist M. E. 1995. Prey selec-tion by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical fo-rests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64, 439-450.

Karanth K. U. & Nichols J. D. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology, 79, 2852-2862.

Karanth K. U. & Sunquist M. E. 2000. Behaviou-ral correlates of predation by tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard (Panthera pardus) and dhole (Cuon alpinus) in Nagarahole, India. Journal of Zoology 250, 255-265.

Morrison J. C., Sechrest W., Dinerstein E., Wilco-ve D. S. & Lamoreux J. F. 2007. Persistence of large mammal faunas as indicators of global human impacts. Journal of Mammology 88, 1363-1380.

O’Brien T. G., Kinnaird M. F. & Wibisono H. T. 2003. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumat-ran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation 6, 131-139.

Sheng L., Dajun W., Xiaodong G. & William J. M. 2010. Beyond pandas, the need for a standar-dized monitoring protocol for large mammals in Chinese nature reserves. Biodiversity Con-servation 19, 3195-3206.

Steneck R. S. 2005. An ecological context for the role of large carnivorous animals in conser-ving biodiversity. In Large Carnivores and the conservation of biodiversity. Ray J., Redford K., Steneck R. & Berger J. (Eds). Island Press, pp. 9-33.

Silveira L., Jacomo A. T. A. & Diniz-Filho J. A. F. 2003. Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Bio-logical Conservation 114, 351-355.

Terborgh J. W., Lopez L., Nunez P., Rao M., Sha-habuddin G., Orihuela G., Riveros M., Asca-nio R., Adler G. H., Lambert T. D., & Balbas L. 2001. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science 294, 1923-1926.

Walston J., Robinson J. G., Bennett E. L., Brei-tenmoser U., Fonseca G. A. B. da., Goodrich J., Gumal M., Hunter L., Johnson A., Karanth K. U., Leader-Williams N., MacKinnon K., Miquelle D., Pattanavibool A., Poole C., Ra-binowitz A., Smith J. L. D., Stokes E. J., Stu-art S. N., Vongkhamheng C. & Wibisono H.

2010. Bringing the tiger back from the brink – the six percent solution. PLoS Biology 8 (9): e1000485.

Wang S. & Macdonald D. 2009. Feeding habits and niche partitioning in a predator guild composed of tigers, leopards and dholes in a temperate ecosystem in central Bhutan. Jour-nal of Zoology 277, 275-283.

Wegge P., Pokheral C. P. & Jnawali S. R. 2004. Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies. Animal Conservation 7, 251-256.

Wegge P., Odden M., Pokharel C. P. & Storaas T. 2009. Predator–prey relationships and re-sponses of ungulates and their predators to the establishment of protected areas: a case study of tigers, leopards and their prey in Bar-dia National Park, Nepal. Biological Conser-vation 142, 189-202.

WWF-India. 1993. Eco-development of the Sou-thern Periphery of the Manas Wildlife Sanc-tuary: A Socio-economic Survey of Villages in the Project Area. WWF - India Project No. 4838, 59 pp.

1 WWF India, Parbati Nagar, Tezpur, Assam, India

*<jimmyborah@gmail.com> 2 UNESCO World Heritage Project, ATREE,

Guwahati, Assam, India3 Aaranyak, 50 Samanwoy Path, Survey Beltola,

Guwahati, Assam, India4 WWF India, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, India5 Manas Tiger Reserve, Barpeta Road, Assam,

India

Fig. 3a. Himalayan black bear

Fig. 3b. Sloth bear

19

carnivores in Manas National Park