RELATIVE ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIGER PREY BASE IN
BARDIA-KATARNIYAGHAT CORRIDOR FOREST, BARDIA, NEPAL
A thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirement of the
B.Sc. Forestry Degree
Submitted by:
Ajay Karki
Exam Roll Number: 260
TU Registration Number: 2-1-47-1-2002
Submitted to:
Kathmandu Forestry College (KAFCOL)
Institute of Forestry
Tribhuvan University
December, 2009
RELATIVE ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIGER PREY BASE IN
BARDIA-KATARNIYAGHAT CORRIDOR FOREST, BARDIA, NEPAL
A thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirement of the
B.Sc. Forestry Degree
Submitted by:
Ajay Karki
Exam Roll Number: 260
TU Registration Number: 2-1-47-1-2002
Submitted to:
Kathmandu Forestry College (KAFCOL)
Institute of Forestry
Tribhuvan University
Advisor
Co- advisor
Dr. Shant Raj Jnawali
Mrs. Shalu Adhikari
Visiting Faculty
Lecturer
Wildlife Biology
Kathmandu University,
KAFCOL
Nepal
December, 2009
ii
Approval sheet
This is to certify that we have examined this copy of B.Sc. forestry degree thesis by
Mr. Ajay Karki
and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all
revisions required by the final examining committee have been made.
…………………..........
…...….…………………..
Shant Raj Jnawali, Ph.D.
Bishnu Hari Pandit, Ph.D
Advisor
Principal
KAFCOL
……………………..
Mr. Shiva Raj Bhatta
External Examiner
Date- 15 Dec. 2009
iii
Letter of Acceptance
This is to certify that Mr. Ajay Karki, B.Sc. Forestry final year (2005-2009) student at
Kathmandu Forestry College has prepared the research paper entitled "Relative Abundance
and Distribution of Tiger Prey Base in Bardia-Katarniyaghat Corridor Forest, Bardia,
Nepal" under my supervision. The research task including this research report was
completed in compliance with the research proposal agreed upon earlier.
We are pleased to accept this project paper, submitted as a partial fulfillment for the
requirement of Bachelor Degree in Forestry from KAFCOL, affiliated to Tribhuvan University.
.
Shant Raj Jnawali, Ph.D
Visiting Faculty
Wildlife Biology
KAFCOL, Kathmandu, Nepal
Date- 15 Dec. 2009
iv
Declaration
I, Ajay Karki, hereby declare that this thesis entitled "Relative Abundance and Distribution
of Tiger Prey Base in Bardia- Katarniyaghat Corridor Forest, Bardia, Nepal", submitted
in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Bachelor of Science in Forestry (B.Sc.
Forestry) Degree in Kathmandu Forestry College, is genuine work done originally by me.
The dissertation entitled or any part of it thereof has not been published or submitted
elsewhere for the academic award of any other university or institution. Any literature, data
or works done by others and cited within this report has been given due acknowledgement
and listed in the reference section.
.................................
Ajay Karki
Date- 15 Dec. 2009
Email - [email protected]
v
Acknowledgement
The study could not have been accomplished without the assistance and support of many
individual, organizations, colleagues and friends. I am very much excited and give me
pleasure from bottom of my heart to express my gratitude to the following personnel and my
friends. I extend my honor to advisor Dr. Shant Raj Jnawali and co- advisor and Mrs. Shalu
Adhikari for their cooperation during my study. I am grateful to the National Trust for
Nature Conservation for providing me research grant.
I would, especially, like to thank Mr. Bishnu Prasad Thapaliya (DNPWC) for all kinds of
support from commencement of study to today. I appreciate Mr. Madhav Khadka (DNPWC)
and Rupak Maharjan (DNPWC) for assistance in my field work. I must appreciate Sarita
Jnawali (NTNC, central zoo) and Dr. Binav for providing me samples of pellet of different
prey species.
I would also like to thank Mr. Jhamak Bahadur Karki (DNPWC), Mr. Tikaram Adhikari
(BNP), Mr. Ramesh Thapa (BNP), Mrs. Unnati Sharma (BNP), Mr. Manish Raj Pandey
(BCP), Mr. Rabin Kadariya(BCP), Mr. Pannaram Tharu (CFCC), Mr. Bishnu Yogi (Khata
RP) for their valuable help in information collection. Field work could not be accomplished
without hard and continuous labor of Tirtha vai. My sincere thanks go to Mr. Purna Bahadur
Kunwar (WWF, TAL), Mr. Rabindra Maharjan (DoF), Mr. Gokarna Jung Thapa (WWF),
Mr. Kanchan Thapa (WWF) and Mr. Laxman Ghimire for constant inspiration and technical
assistance.
I would like to thank Dr. Bishnu Hari Pandit (Principal, KAFCOL), Mr. Himlal
Shrestha(Academic coordinator, KAFCOL), Mr. Arun Dhakal (KAFCOL), Mr. Buddi Sagar
Poudel (DNPWC), and Mr. Niroj Man Shrestha(IOF, Pokhara) for reviewing this report and
continuous inspiration. Thanks are also due to my colleague Samjhana Sigdel, Saroj Thapa,
Shambhu Poudel, Deepak BK, Shanta Ram Baral, Shambhu Charmakar, Santosh Humagain,
Arun Adhikari, Ramesh Silwal, Lina Chalise, Rajan Poudel, Suraj Upadhaya, Richa Niraula,
Chandrama Khadka and Krishna Sharma for their cooperation in many instances during my
study and report preparation.
Finally, I thank my family, especially mother, sisters and my brother in law for their constant
support. I wish to dedicate this thesis to them. They have been a steady source of
encouragement, kindness, forgiveness and love that showed me how to do better than best.
vi
Acronyms
APU
Anti Poaching Unit
BCP
Bardia Conservation Program
BNP
Bardia National Park
CFCC
Community Forest Coordination Committee
CFUG
Community Forest User Group
CITES
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora
DNPWC
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Reserves
DoF
Department of Forest
GIS
Geographic Information System
GL
Grassland
GPS
Global Positioning System
GoN
Government of Nepal
HMG/N
Then His Majesty's Government of Nepal
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Km
Kilometer
KSF
Khair-Sisoo association Forest
KWS
Katarniyaghat Wildlife Sanctuary
MoFSC
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
NBLP
Nepal Biodiversity Landscape Project
NPWCA
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
NTNC
National Trust for Nature Conservation
PA
Protected Area
RIV
Riverine forest
RP
Range Post
SDF
Sal Dominant Forest
TAL
Terai Arc Landscape
TU
Tribhuwan University
VDC
Village Development Committee
WR
Wildlife Reserve
WTLC
Western Terai Landscape Conservation
WWF
World Wildlife Fund
vii
Table of Contents
Approval Sheet .......................................................................................................................................III
Letter of Acceptance............................................................................................................................... IV
Declaration ............................................................................................................................................... V
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................. VI
Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................. VII
Table of Contents................................................................................................................................. VIII
List of Table ............................................................................................................................................ XI
List of Figure ......................................................................................................................................... XII
List of Photo Plates ............................................................................................................................... XII
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ XIII
CHAPTER - I........................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.3 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
General Objective .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Specific Objectives ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.4 HYPOTHESIS............................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
CHAPTER- II .......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
STUDY AREA ......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
2.1 GENERAL ................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
2.2. BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
2.2.1 Climate ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.2 Geology ........................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3 Land Use Pattern ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.4 Floral Diversity ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.5 Faunal Diversity ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER- III ........................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
3.1 TIGER AND ITS PREY .................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF PELLET GROUP METHOD ........................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
3.3 DESCRIPTION OF DIFFERENT PELLETS ....................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
3.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF FECAL PELLETS OF DIFFERENT UNGULATESERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
3.5 WILDLIFE AND CORRIDOR ......................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
viii
CHAPTER-IV .......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
METHODOLOGY .................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.1 RECONNAISSANCE OF THE STUDY AREA .................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.2.1 Literature Review and Consultation ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.2 Interview ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.3 Direct Observation.......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.4 Key Informants Survey .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.5 Transect Design and Data Collection ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.1 Density ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.2 Distribution ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.3 Habitat Preference .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER- V .......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
5.1 PREY ABUNDANCE IN DIFFERENT HABITAT ............................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
5.2 HABITAT WISE PELLET GROUP ABUNDANCE ............................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
5.3 SPECIES WISE PREY DISTRIBUTION ........................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
5.3.1 Spotted Deer ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.2 Barking deer ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.3 Hog deer ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.4 Blue bull .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.5 Langur............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.6 Wild boar ........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.7 Rabbit .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.4 HABITAT PREFERENCE ............................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
5.4.1 Habitat Wise Preference ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.4.2 Species Wise Habitat Preference .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.5 DISTRIBUTION PATTERN ............................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
CHAPTER- VI ......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
CORRIDOR CONSERVATION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONSERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
DEFINED.
CHAPTER- VII ....................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
REFERENCE .......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ANNEXES ................................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
A. LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
B.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING ............................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Hypothesis Ist: Based on habitat type ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ix
Hypothesis 2nd: Based on group of transect ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
C. SURVEY SHEET FORM ................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
D. CHECKLIST FOR INTERVIEW ........................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
E. LIST OF MAPS .............................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
x
List of Table
Table 1: Species wise overall mean pellets density of prey species ...................................................... 37
Table 2: Mean pellet density of Spotted deer by habitat ....................................................................... 37
Table 3: Mean pisses density of Langur by habitat .............................................................................. 37
Table 4: Mean pellet density of Blue bull by habitat ............................................................................ 38
Table 5: Mean pellet density of Rabbit by habitat ................................................................................ 38
Table 6: Mean pellet density of Barking deer by habitat ...................................................................... 38
Table 7: Mean pellet density of Wild boar by habitat ........................................................................... 39
Table 8: Mean pellet density of Hog deer by habitat ............................................................................ 39
Table 9: Habitat wise total density of prey pellets ................................................................................ 39
Table 10: Species wise total density of prey pellets .............................................................................. 40
Table 11: Habitat preference shown by prey species ........................................................................... 40
Table 12: Calculating Chi square Test Transect Wise ......................................................................... 41
Table 13: Calculating Species wise Observed and Expected Count ..................................................... 42
Table 14: Calculating Chi Square test habitat wise ............................................................................. 42
xi
List of Figure
Figure1- Map of Study Area ................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2- Land use pattern in Study area ............................................................................................... 8
Figure 3- 10 m2 circular plots taken in study area............................................................................... 17
Figure 4- Abundance of all prey species............................................................................................... 19
Figure 5- Habitat wise mean prey species abundance of Prey species ................................................ 20
Figure 6- Habitat wise abundance of Spotted deer............................................................................... 20
Figure 7- Habitat wise abundance of Barking deer .............................................................................. 21
Figure 8- Habitat wise abundance of Hog deer.................................................................................... 22
Figure 9- Habitat wise abundance of Blue bull .................................................................................... 22
Figure 10- Habitat wise abundance of Langur ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 11- Habitat wise abundance of Wild boar................................................................................. 23
Figure 12- Habitat wise abundance of Rabbit ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 13- Habitat preference by prey species ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 14- Habitat Preference (%) by Prey Species............................................................................. 25
Figure 15- Map Covering Corridor Area ............................................................................................ 46
Figure 16- Transects in 4 Habitat Types .............................................................................................. 47
Figure 17 Transects Taken in Sal Forest .............................................................................................. 48
List of Photo Plates
Photo 1- Pellet of Barking deer ............................................................................................................ 49
Photo 2- Pellet of Spotted Deer ............................................................................................................ 49
Photo 3- Pisses of Langur ..................................................................................................................... 50
Photo 4- Passageway: frequently used by Tiger, near Kothiyaghat (Evidence from local people) ..... 50
xii
Abstract
The entitled study was carried out in Bardia - Katarniyaghat corridor forest, Bardia, Nepal. The
objectives of the study were (1) to examine the habitat wise distribution pattern and abundance of
Tiger's prey species. , (2) to determine the habitat preference of Tiger's prey species and (3) to
identify corridor forest conservation issues and recommend the prescription to secure prey base in the
corridor. Study was accomplished through pellet count in transects. A total of 40 transects; 10
transect in each of four habitat type i.e. (grassland, Khair-Sisoo association forest, Sal dominant
forest and Riverine forest) were taken. The length of each transect was 625m, distance between
adjacent transect as well as parallel transect was maintained at 100m. A total of 1000 circular plots of
10 Sq. m. laid 25 m apart were taken following Smith et al (1999). Species wise pellet groups in
these circular plots were recorded. For identifying pellets, two experienced field guides were taken
and compared with samples taken from Central Zoo, Nepal. Two hypotheses were formulated to
verify the distribution pattern calculated from ratio of variance and mean. Hypothesis first was tested
by applying chi square contingency test to determine whether there is significance difference or not
in distribution pattern of Tiger prey base according to habitat type. Similarly hypothesis second was
tested by applying chi square goodness of fit test to determine whether there is significance
difference or not in distribution pattern of Tiger prey base according to groups of transects measured.
Data were analyzed using MS Excel 2007. Arc GIS 9.1 and Arc view 3.3 were used to show transects
taken in field and to show the map of study area.
A total of 339 pellet groups of Tiger's prey species were counted. Main prey species in the study area
were spotted deer (Axis axis), Barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), Hog deer (Axis porcinus), Blue bull
(Boselaphus tragocomelus), Langur (Semnopithecus entellus), Wild boar (Sus scrofa) and Rabbit
(Lepus nigricollis). The highest mean pellet group abundance was found in grassland with mean
abundance 0.54 pellet group per plot followed by Khair-Sisoo association forest 0.396, Riverine
forest 0.248 and Sal dominant forest 0.192 pellet groups per plot. The most preferred habitat of prey
species was found to be grassland i.e. 38.35 % followed by 29.79%, 18.58% and 13.28% by KhairSisoo association forest, Riverine forest and Sal dominant forest respectively. Distribution pattern of
prey in different habitat type was calculated and found to be of clumped type, which was verified by
calculating variance and mean ratio (S2/a=23.75). Out of four habitat types; Khair-Sisoo association
forest and grasslands were considered important habitats. From first hypothesis we rejected Ho, i.e.
there is significant difference in distribution of prey base in different habitat type, like wise in second
hypothesis we rejected Ho, i.e. there is significant difference in distribution of prey base in different
group of transects measured. Prey and predator are at high risk and challenging the viability because
they are threatened by encroachment, poaching, habitat fragmentation, habitat alteration and habitat
loss. Regular monitoring of wildlife population and accounting of distribution and abundance may be
helpful for determining their conservation status. Landscape level conservation plan and timely
xiii
awareness programs are the demand of time for appropriate management action.
Chapter - I
Introduction
1.1 Background
Among the total eight known species of Tigers, only five species survive today. Due to loss
and fragmentation of habitats, poaching and trade of Tiger body parts, the Tiger population
across its range are decreasing sharply. Three sub species of Tigers (Panthera tigris balica,
Panthera tigris virgata and Panthera tigris sandaica) have been driven to extinction within
last six decades and remaining five species of Tigers are also under tremendous pressure of
extinction. Royal Bengal Tiger, Panthera tigris tigris (hereafter referred to as Tiger) survive
only in small, isolated protected areas of India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar
(Bagale 2005). The Tiger once ranged widely across the grassland and forest of Terai in
Nepal. Until a half century ago, this habitat was indirectly preserved because of the high risk
from malaria (low human pressure) and government supported a deliberate policy of
maintaining a natural barrier of thick forest all along the southern boarder with India as a
strategic defense against invasion from the British Empire (Shrestha, 2004). Contradiction
with government’s resettlement program this natural barrier was no more manifest after mid
1950’s malaria eradication program. This policy restricted large-scale agricultural
development and human settlements in the Terai (Shrestha, 2004). Downhill migration and
resettlement program fragmented the habitats. If present trend of poaching and habitat
degradation continues, Tiger will be extinct in near future (Anon. 2007 and Anon. 2002); in
addition prey species depletion is another major issue (Anon. 2002).
The conservation of Tiger is regarded as the conservation of the whole ecosystem as its
position is at the apex of food web. Tiger has been used as flagship species of wildlife
conservation in several Asian countries since the early 1970's (Shrestha 2004). Densities of
Tiger appear to be primarily a function of prey densities (Karanath and Nicholos 2002).
Densities of principal prey species influence Tiger densities in different ways. As prey
densities decline, breeding female ranges become larger, dramatically reducing the number of
such females that an area can support. High prey densities appear to permit the area to
support higher number of transient animals also (Karanath and Nicholos 2002). Because cub
and juvenile survival rates higher when prey availability is higher, the number of Tiger in
these two demographic stages is also higher. While other habitat related or managerial factors
also influence Tiger density at a given site, prey abundance appears to be the primary
ecological determinant in most places (Karanath and Nicholos 2002). According to Karnath
and Smith (1999), the most important threat to Tiger occurrence is prey depletion.
Wild ungulates are the major prey base of the Tiger and these species have a key role in
maintaining the Tiger populations. The evidence on evolutionary history suggests that
ungulate communities act as a determinant of Tiger distribution and abundance across the
distributional range. Spotted deer (Axis axis), Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), Swamp deer
(Cervus duvauceli), Hog deer (Axis porcinus), Barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), Wild boar
(Sus scorfa), Gaur bison (Bos gaurus) and sometimes Langur (Semnopithecus entellus)
comprise the main prey species for Tigers in Nepal. Sometimes Blue bull (Boselaphus
tragocamelus) and four horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis) are also eaten but their
distribution is very limited. Domestic lives are occasionally preyed upon in peripheral
habitats (Bagale 2005).
Currently, wildlife conservation in forest outside protected areas is virtually nonexistent; very
few Tigers occur in this habitat because the degraded landscape, increased human activities,
and human pressure have widely reduced the Tiger prey base below a level needed to support
resident breeding Tigers (Shrestha 2008). Protected areas constitute 18% of the Terai forest
(Shrestha 2008). They are becoming the last asylum for Tigers and other large mammal
populations owing to increased human pressure on the national forest. Expansion of protected
areas or bringing more forestlands under strict protection is no longer a feasible option due to
the heavy dependence of people on forest resources for livelihood. This makes conservation
of large carnivores more challenging than ever because these animals require large areas of
habitat (Noss et al. 1996).
In view of the above facts, need for scientific monitoring of Tiger and prey population
aroused for following three considerations. Firstly, there is a need to objectively evaluate the
success or failure of management interventions so as to react adaptively and solve problems.
A second major goal of scientific monitoring of Tiger and prey populations is to establish
benchmark data that can serve as a basis for future management. The third goal is to develop
a body of empirical and theoretical knowledge that can potentially improve our predictive
capacity to deal with new situations (Karnath and Nicholos 2002). Tiger is in Appendix I of
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)
and Appendix I or Red Book published by IUCN. In Nepal, Tiger is listed as protected
species in Appendix I under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 (Anon.
2007). It is believed by Tiger biologists that if wild Tiger are to survive through the next
2
century, it is imperative to effectively manage Tiger populations and their prey base without
further delay (Anon. 2002).
Especially in case of rare and endangered species biological requirements of them is not
adequately met by the protected area infrastructure in the present form. It is therefore
recommended that physical links between protected areas should be instituted and
translocation and reintroduction of endangered species should also be explored. If reserves
are linked together by healthy habitat; Tigers, rhino, elephant and co-habitant species have a
good chance of long term survival (Sherpa 2001).
To conserve the species, it is imperative to understand factors influencing their diligence,
what is intimidating the population and why their physical existence changes in accordance
with time. Animals move in search of food, habitat, to fulfill sexual desires and to secure
from adverse climatic condition etc. In these manners animals use corridors accordingly.
Wildlife movement corridors, also called dispersal corridors or landscape linkages as opposed
to linear habitats, are linear features whose primary wildlife function is to connect at least two
significant habitat areas (Beier and Loe 1992). These corridors may help to reduce or
moderate some of the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation by facilitating dispersal of
individuals between substantive patches of remaining habitat, allowing for both long-term
genetic interchange and individuals to re-colonize habitat patches from which populations
have been locally extirpated.
Bardia National Park (BNP) situated in western Terai of Nepal was established primarily for
protecting representative ecosystem and conserving Tiger and its prey species. This BNP is
connected with Katarniyaghat Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) through a forest corridor that
extends along Geruwa and Orai river systems. Now, it has been well established that for a
carnivore like Tiger, besides the requirement of large undisturbed habitats prey base is a key
factor explaining their viability (Jha et al 2001, Sunquist and Sunquist 1989, Karanth and
Sunquist 1995, Karanth and Nicholos 2002).
Protected areas that remain as isolated units, surrounded by a radically altered habitat, almost
always face serious viability problems over the long term. The importance of strengthening
ecological coherence and resilience is necessary conditions for both biodiversity conservation
and sustainable development. Beier (1993) and Rosenberg (1997) concluded that many
natural areas are critical core habitats which are inappropriate for any human development; in
which conservation of corridors will not mitigate against additional loss of core habitat. So it
is necessary to do management and conservation exercises only in disturbed areas. The
present study was under taken in Bardia- Katarniyaghat corridor forest which is an important
3
landscape that serves as a functional passage allowing safe movement of wildlife including
Tiger between BNP and KWS in India. About 9 Km long strip of forest (study area) along
Geruwa and Orai rivers is seriously threatened due to human pressure and livestock grazing.
1.2 Problem Statement
Tiger may extinct in the near future if the present trends of poaching and habitat degradation
continue (Anon. 2007). In addition, massive depletion of Tiger prey base and poaching are
the determining factors for long term survival of Tiger. Bardia – Katarniyaghat corridor forest
is very important for genetic exchange and seasonal migration of a range of wildlife species.
Now heavy pressure on forest, encroachment, excessive harvest of the forest product and
grazing problem are the major issues, which are becoming the main causes for depleting the
density of prey as well as Tiger. Two to Four Tigers reside permanently in the corridor forest
area (Pers. Comm. Tharu P.). So far no systematic study on prey base has conducted and a
need to understand distribution, habitat preference and abundance of prey base for permanent
existence and survival of Tiger population is envisaged. This study has got an added
importance when viewed as a part of long term monitoring and survival of Tiger. So this
study was become necessary to conduct.
1.3 Objectives
General Objective
General objective of this study was to assess status of prey base in Bardia- Katarniyaghat
corridor forest.
Specific Objectives
•
To examine the habitat wise distribution pattern and abundance of Tiger's prey
species.
•
To determine the habitat preference of Tiger's prey species.
•
Identify corridor forest conservation issues and recommend the prescription to
secure prey base in the corridor.
1.4 Hypothesis
Hypothesis was tested under following conditions.
I. Based on habitat types (grassland, Sal dominant forest, Khair- Sisoo association forest
and Riverine forest).
4
II. Based on transect's group
According to condition first,
Ho: There is no variation in distribution of Tiger's prey species according to habitat types.
H1: There is variation in distribution of Tiger's prey species according to habitat types.
According to condition second,
Ho: There is no variation in distribution of Tiger's prey species in the transect group
measured.
H1: There is variation in distribution of Tiger's prey species in the transect group measured.
1.5 Limitations of the Study
•
Due to water logging, rainfall and extensive growth of annual weeds, all
predetermined and planned transect could not be measured.
•
The forest canopy gave the poor GPS coverage which could have potential hindrance
in locating the exact plot.
•
Budget and time availability limited the study to conduct in depth.
5
Chapter- II
Study Area
2.1 General
The study was carried out on the Bardia- Katarniyaghat corridor forest extended 9 Km
between BNP, Nepal and KWS, India. Geographically, the area is located between
N28o27.342’- E81o12.591’and N28o22.19’- E81o13.605’ in the southwestern region of Nepal
in Bardia district. The highest elevation is 361 towards the North and lowest elevation is
121m towards the South. The area constitutes Geruwa (eastern branch of Karnali) River and
its floodplains in the southern part of BNP. It comprises of Grasslands and Riverine forests as
an important habitat for greater one horned rhino, Tiger, Asian elephants, ungulates and other
wildlife species.
2.2. Biophysical Features
2.2.1 Climate
The area generally has sub-tropical climate with three distinctive seasons; rainy seasons, cool
and dry seasons, and hot and dry seasons (Dinerstein, 1979). The average rainfall is 2205.5
mm/year, of which; more than 80% falls during June to September. Additionally the average
maximum temperature ranges from 28o C to 29.4
o
C and average minimum temperature
ranges from 18 o C to 19.8 o C during April and May (Kharel 2003).
2.2.2 Geology
The Chure foothills forms a gentle slope of alluvial soil, consisting of boulders, cobbles,
gravel and coarse sand inter bedded with silt and clay. As a result, water seeps down and
upper layer remains mostly dry (Shrestha et al. 1997). The study area is relatively low lying
flat terrain of the Terai consisting of fine alluvial soil and loam. The Karnali flood plain, Orai
river and Babai riverbed consists course sand to fresh deposits of alluvial soil, silt and gravel.
6
Figure1- Map of Study Area
Source- Ggoogle earth
7
2.2.3 Land Use Pattern
Bardia district cover a total area of 228,000 Ha, of which 14.7% is under forest, 26.15% is
cultivated land, 42.45% is national park, 0.43% is grazing land and 16.72% others (rock,
river, road etc.) (Jha et al. 2001). In corridor area around 48% land is under cultivation, 33%
is forest, 3.5% is bush, 6% is grassland, 2% is plantation forest, 5.5% is river bank and 2%
others.
Figure 2- Land use pattern in Study area
2.2.4 Floral Diversity
Jnawali and Wegge (1993) classified the vegetation types of Bardia into seven main forest
types and three types of grassland. Vegetation pattern is similar to BNP in corridor area also.
1.
Sal forest
2.
Khair- Sisoo association forest
3.
Moist Riverine forest
4.
Riverine forest
5.
Wooded grassland
6.
Open Phanta
7.
Floodplain grassland
Species composition of Sal forest is highly dominated by regenerated Sal (Shorea robusta).
Khair-Sisoo association forest is majorly composed of Dalbergia sisoo and Acacia catechu
with its associates. Moist Riverine forest has dominating species like Syzigium cumini, Ficus
8
racemosa, Mallotus phillipinensis, etc. In Riverine forest, Garuga pinnata, Bombax ceiba,
Adina cardifolia and Mitragyna parviflora are the common species.
Open grassland, have major species as, Impertata cylindrica, Saccharum spontaneum,
Vetiveria zizanoides, Desmostachya bipinnata, Zizyphus rugosa, Cynodon dactylon etc. In the
floodplain grassland, Phragmites karka, Saccharum benghalensis etc are confined along the
bank of Geruwa, Karnali and Orai rivers. These are submerged by water during the monsoon
flood (Shrestha et al. 1997).
2.2.5 Faunal Diversity
In corridor area, more than 53 species of mammals are reported from Bardia. Protected
species under NPWC act 1973, found in area are; rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), Asian wild
elephant (Elephas maximus), Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), Swamp deer (Cervus duvauceli),
four horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis), hispid hare (Caprolagus hispidus), Ganges
river dolphin (Platanista gangetica), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena) and leopord Cat (Felis
benglensis) (Anon. 2008). More than 400 species of birds are recorded in and around study
area. Bengal Florican (Houbaropia bengalensis), lesser Florican (Sypheotides indica), white
stork (Ciconia ciconia), black stork (Ciconia nigra), Sarus crane (Grus antigone) and giant
hornbill (Buceros Bicornis) are the protected species as by NPWC Act, 1973 that are found in
and around study area. Similarly 25 species of reptiles and amphibians are found here.
9
Chapter- III
Literature Review
3.1 Tiger and Its Prey
Tiger’s density is primarily a function of prey densities. Prey density/ prey distribution is the
key factor driving first and second order site selection by Tiger. The prey population is a
critical determinant of Tiger population viability (Shrestha 2008). The low prey density
within the habitat leads to lower encounter rates of Tigers with their prey resulting in greater
search effort to find prey, and much higher energy expenditure per kill (Sunquist and
Sunquist 2001). So prey depletion should be explicitly recognized as a threat to persistence of
Tiger apart from habitat loss, structural degradation of habitat and Tiger poaching. Karnath
and Stith (2002) used stage-based, demographic model; they simulated the effects of
poaching and prey depletion on the viability of Tiger population. Their result suggest that, by
reducing cub survival, prey depletion may have a major impact on Tiger population viability,
and that Tiger population may be more sensitive to depressed prey populations than to low
intensity Tiger poaching. Without arresting prey depletion they argue, the decline of Tiger
population may continue even if poaching is controlled. They concluded that Tiger
conservation must focus on specific strategies to enhance and monitor the ungulate prey base
for Tigers.
A report published of Tiger census based on camera trap revealed a total of 121 adult Tigers
were recorded in all Nepal (Karki et al. 2009). Compared to records from 2005 (Anon.
2008), Tiger population in Chitwan NP increased slightly while there is drastic decline in
Bardia NP and Shuklaphanta WR. Prey depletion has been recognized as the single most
factor driving the current decline of wild Tiger populations and hence a significant constraint
on their recovery (Karanth & Stith, 1999), results from habitat occupancy survey conducted
by Karki et al. (2009) is also consistent with this. This report also concludes that comparing
the influence of two covariates, human disturbance and prey availability, it is clarified that
habitat occupancy by Tigers was more affected by prey abundance than the human
disturbance. Suitable areas for Tiger which have depleted prey base should be managed with
an important focus on increasing the prey base otherwise, Tiger is danger if extinction in near
future. It is urgent that management to focus on managing wild prey base of Tigers and
10
reduction of ongoing poaching and trade in their parts for effective recovery of Tiger
populations in Nepal (Karki et al. 2009).
Although Tiger have been known to feed on wide variety animals (Schaller 1967) a marked
preference for medium to large sized ungulates has been documented by studies in different
habitats. Karnath and Sunquist (1995), Bagchi et al.(2003) and Johnsingh et al. (2004) have
found that medium to large sized ungulates comprise the bulk of the Tiger’s diet, of which
Spotted deer and Sambar constitute approximately 55%- 65%. Medium sized prey includes
Spotted deer and Wild boar, while large prey includes Sambar, Swamp deer and Blue bull,
similarly Langur, Hog deer, Barking deer and four horned antelope are small prey (Malla
2009). The average kill rate is 50 ungulates/adult Tiger/year, while a Tigress with large cubs
requires 60-73 ungulates/ year (Sunquist 1981).
Prey species vary in their habitat requirement, Sambar is generalist grazer/browser (Schaller
1967) known to have significant dependency on shrubs. Spotted deer is known to have
significant dependency on surface water and partial cover (Schaller 1967). Hog deer is true
grazer and prefers tall grassland (Wegge et al. 2009). Barking deer and four horned antelope
are truly forest dweller and browsers. Wild boar is also primary prey species for Tiger. In
Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve Swamp deer is primary prey for Tiger. Prey species in Terai,
follow a gradient, with highest densities in Riverine forest and tall grass interspersed with
shorter- grass grazing areas on newly recovering flooded sites and lower densities in Sal
forest clad hills but near permanent water (Malla 2009).
3.2 Characteristics of Pellet Group Method
Pellet group sampling is a well- suited method for the conditions existing in the lowland
(Terai) of Nepal in the winter and early part of the dry season. Pellets have been reported to
be a reliable indicator of habitat occupancy by ungulates (Thapa 2003). In flat areas, where
the movement of animal is not constrained by topography, pellet sampling is a good
estimation of relative animal abundance and distribution (Thapa 2003). Pellet occurrence
gives a better indication of habitat use methods based on direct sightings because inference
from the latter is restricted to the actual time of sighting, whereas pellet records reflects
habitat use over long time period. It is possible to get biased information from direct sightings
because animal might move before they are detected, if they sense people movement before
and in case of dense habitat, some animals are not seen due to their size or their tendency to
hide (Thapa 2003).
11
3.3 Description of Different Pellets
Dinerstein (1979) concluded that, the shape of Spotted deer depends upon food source,
varying from cylinders to tear or elongated pellets. Even though droppings can have different
shapes, the only species that Spotted deer pellets can be mistaken for in this area are Hog deer
and Barking deer. Hog deer is found in the floodplains and Barking deer has smaller and not
as coarse droppings as Spotted deer (Naess and Andersen 1993).
3.4 Characteristics of Fecal Pellets of Different Ungulates
Species
Pellet Shape
Relative Size
Barking
Comma shape
Much smaller than Sambar Dark brown
deer
Spotted
Color
and Spotted deer
Cylindrical to elongated
Smaller than Blue bull
Light brown to black
Hog deer
Smaller than Spotted deer
Smaller than Spotted deer
Light brown to black
Wild boar
Round
Larger than Blue bull
Dark brown
Blue bull
Round
Larger than Spotted deer
Blackish Brown
deer
Source- Thapa (2003) and based on my field observation
3.5 Wildlife and Corridor
Corridor is part of a regional land that might be forest, settlement, river, bare land and
agricultural field, forming and describing the network of all ecological and environmental
activities that are important to the health of local regional wildlife populations (Bennet,
1998). Corridors are those avenues along which wide ranging animal can move safely and
feel safety; plants can propagate, genetic interchange can occur, populations can move in
response to environmental changes and natural disasters, and threatened species can be
replenished from the other areas (Anon., 2000). It allows safe movement from one habitat to
another. On a local and shorter time scale, this corridor allows individual animals and
populations to move between daily and seasonally maintaining the integrity of important
habitats (Anon., 2001).
Until 1960 the need of corridors to connect protected areas was not made explicit (Shafer,
1999). The idea of combining of concentric buffer zone and corridors within a park was
proposed by Shafer (1999). All the animals do not require corridors to cross a landscape
(Poudyal 2000). However there are no sufficient data available on the actual use of corridors
12
by animals, maintaining natural habitat connectivity is the prudent path to follow for all
species. Two fragments of similar habitat that are linked by corridors are likely to have
greater conservation value than isolated fragments of similar size (Diamond 1975; Wilson
and Willis, 1975). The conservation of continuous corridors of habitat to link isolate such as
nature reserves, woodlands or patches of forest is widely recommended as conservation
measures to counter the impacts of habitat reduction, shrinkage and fragmentation (Bennet,
1999). Corridors, as conservation measure have been successful to draw the attention of
planner, policy makes, managers and community workers in a wide range of terminology as
wildlife corridor, landscape linkages, dispersal corridor, biological path, green belts, green
ways and other forms of connectivity features (Bennet 1999).
An effective habitat corridor provides a continuous or near continuous, link of suitable habitat
through an inhospitable environment. There are different types of habitat corridors that can
link fragments of natural vegetation at the local scale in developed landscape. Some of the
linear features of corridor are hedgerows, fencerows, plantation, remnant roadside vegetation,
streamside strip, large sugarcane fields, rice fields, corn fields and other plantations that
function as linkages. Additionally broad tract of natural vegetation, which can link natural
reserves or large protected areas at the landscape, regional or even continental scale also
function as habitat corridors (Bennet, 1999). The buffer zone sometimes may work as
corridor. The extension buffer is shaped like a corridor but hugs the park boarder and could
function as corridor over a short distance.
It is necessary to link the isolated habitat for conservation and management of biodiversity, to
provide chance of interbreeding, giving access to larger habitats. Corridors, connecting the
core habitat are of high importance since they increase the effective amount of habitat that is
available for species and prevent from habitat fragmentation. This is especially important for
migratory animals and those with larger home range. As we know, larger habitat support
greater diversity, larger populations and a wider range of food and water sources and shelter
(Bennet, 1999). They also help to interbreed and long term genetic variability which
ultimately stabilizes the population. However, corridors; by themselves, cannot substitute for
large areas of protected habitat, such as core ecological reserves (Shafer, 1999).
In urban areas, corridor can provide significant recreational opportunities and very important
linkages in a highly fragmented landscape. Whenever possible, urban and rural parks and
open spaces should be linked to form functional wildlife corridors, which can then be joined
to outlying core reserves. Connectivity can be defined as the relative degree to which
13
individual animals and genes also can move across a landscape. Habitat alteration practices
greatly reduce the connectivity for the majority of wildlife species (Malla, 2009).
14
Chapter-IV
Methodology
4.1 Reconnaissance of the Study Area
A reconnaissance survey was carried out in the selected site to conceptualize the real situation
and basic information that to cross-check with the secondary information of the area.
4.2 Data Collection Methods
4.2.1 Literature Review and Consultation
Previous research findings, maps, journals, publications, reports of different line agencies,
published or unpublished and other relevant literatures were reviewed to perceive the better
understanding, interpretation and analysis of the research. Consultation with BNP's staff,
NTNC-BCP's staff, CFCC's staff and board members, and range post's staff was done in
order to make the better intend in the field before commencing the field work.
4.2.2 Interview
To identify the conservation issues in the corridor forest area, interview with FUG’s member,
CFCC staff and range post staff was accomplished.
4.2.3 Direct Observation
Direct observation was carried out in study area to document the vegetation type, to
conceptualize the anthropogenic pressure (encroachment and settlement), to know in general
about the movement of animal and their routes. Vegetation classification map from WWF
Nepal program and Topo map (sheet no 2881 09 B, 2881 09 D, 2881 10 A and 2881 10 C;
compiled from aerial photography of 1996 and field verification of 1997), scale 1:25,000,
from Survey Department, GoN; was used to classify the vegetation type on the basis of
species composition and dominancy. Information collected from NTNC-BCP, BNP, CFCC
and Khata range post were also used to classify the vegetation type.
4.2.4 Key Informants Survey
This survey was focused on people who is familiar to this site, can identify the wild animals;
frequently visit to this site, and shows keen interest on wildlife (CFCC’s staff, CFUG's
member, Range post's staffs). The main purpose of this survey was to find out the current
anthropogenic pressure on forest, to know the migratory and resident wildlife of the area,
15
existing problems in corridor management with special emphasis on wildlife using the
corridor.
4.2.5 Transect Design and Data Collection
Indices of population abundance are frequently used to assess population status and change
for many wildlife species that are difficult to census (Eberhardt and simmons 1987). Pellet
group count is one example used widely to estimate the abundance of ungulate species
(Bennet et al. 1940; Eberhardt and Van Etten 1956; Neff 1968; bailey and Putnam 1981;
Plumptre and Harris 1995; Barnes et al. 1997; Komers and Peter 1997; Vernes 1999; Barnes
2001; Krebs et al. 2001; Marques et al. 2001; Walsh et al. 2001; Barnes 2002) and their
habitat use (Collins and Urness 1981; loft and Kie 1988; Edge and Marcum 1989; Harkonen
and Heikkila 1999) despite some controversies (Van Etten and Bennet 1965; Collins and
Urness 1981, 1984; Fuller 1991, 1992; white 1992). Transects for sample plots were selected
systematically by random start with some pre determined sampling rules:
a. Plots were located at least 1 km inside from the edge.
b. A pellet group consisted of ≥ 5 pellets spread out close together and having similar
size, shape, texture and color (Freddy and Browden 1983), and
c. A best estimate of the number of pellet groups were made based on age of pellets,
color, sheen, and level of degradation of pellets.
To assess the prey abundance, I used a technique modified from the works of several
investigators (Wegge 1976; Freddy and Bowden 1983; Smith 1984; smith et al. 1998). Each
transect or sampling unit was a 625 m long straight line transect with 25 circular plots spaced
25 m apart. Each plot was 10 m2 in size (Wegge 1976; Smith 1984). Such pellet counts in a
series of small sized plots along a line transect is considered efficient in terms of its power
and time required (Neff 1968). For each plot, a starting point was established and then a pole
1.785 m long was slowly swung at 360° as the plot is surveyed. Distance between adjacent
and parallel transect was also maintained at 100m. Transect was taken according to the
vegetation type.
100m
Transect
625m
Adjacent Transects
625
100m
Parallel transects
16
A total of 40 transect and 1000 circular plots of 10 m2 were
taken. Ten transects in each habitat type were taken i.e. Sal
forest, Riverine forest, Khair- Sisoo association forest and
r: 1.785m
grass land.
Species wise pellets of prey species in these
circular plots were recorded. Detection probability was
considered as 100% because plots were small and searched
carefully. A total of 339 pellet group of Tiger's prey species
Circular plots taken in field
was counted. Species considered as prey were Spotted deer
(Axis axis), Hog deer (Axis porcinus), Blue bull (Boselaphus tragocomelus),Barking deer
(Muntiacus muntjac), Langur (Semnopithecus entellus), Wild boar (Sus scrofa) and Rabbit
(Lepus nigricollis).
Many wildlife were directly sighted during the study; among them 1 Rhino, 9 Spotted deer, 2
Barking deer and 10 Langur. Fresh signs and symbols of Tiger and elephant was also
observed but not observed the animal directly.
Figure 3- 10 m2 circular plots taken in study area
17
4.3 Data Analysis
Following calculations were used to analyze data.
4.3.1 Density
Density of pellet groups per plot was taken as an index of abundance.
Density/ plot = Total number of pellets groups present in all studied plots/Total plots studied
4.3.2 Distribution
Distribution pattern of ungulates was analyzed by calculating ratio of variance and mean (S2/
a) following Odum (1996).
(S2/ a) = 1 (random distribution)
(S2/ a) < 1 (regular distribution)
(S2/ a) > 1 (clumped distribution)
Where S2 = variance = 1/nΣ (x-a) 2
x = sample value; a = mean value
Chi- Square contingency test was used to find out significant differences in the distribution of
prey in different studied samples.
Chi-Square (λ2) =Σ (x-a) 2/a
Where x = observed (or sample) value; a = expected value (or mean value)
4.3.3 Habitat Preference
Habitat preference was also calculated following (Pokhrel, 1996); based on grassland, KhairSisoo association forest, Riverine forest and Sal forest.
Habitat preference (HP) = (PPE/ TPP) × 100
Where,
PPE = Pellet present in each habitat type
TPP = Total pellet present in all the habitat type
18
Chapter- V
Results and Discussion
5.1 Prey Abundance in Different Habitat
Pellet group of Spotted deer was recorded only in 3 habitat type i.e. grassland, Riverine forest
and Khair- Sisoo association forest but its abundance was seen highest in overall. Hog deer
represents only one percent of prey species recorded there. In most cases abundance is seen
fewer; survey, subsequent to rainfall and smaller number of plots sampled may be the cause
behind it.
Figure 4- Abundance of all prey species
5.2 Habitat wise Pellet Group Abundance
Highest prey base abundance was found in grassland with mean of 0.54 pellet group per plot
followed by Khair- Sisoo association forest 0.396, Riverine forest 0.248 and Sal dominant
forest 0.192 pellet groups per plot.
19
Figure 5- Habitat wise mean prey species abundance
5.3 Species Wise Prey Distribution
5.3.1 Spotted Deer
Spotted deer were abundant in grassland with pellet group 0.137 per plot of 10 m2 circular
plots. Spotted deer were not recorded in Sal forest, but many pellets were observed outside
our sampling plots and a herd of 9-10 Spotted deer was also seen in Sal forest. The Spotted
deer is primarily a grazer, preferring newly-sprouting grasses (Tak & Lamba 1984; Elliott &
Barrett 1985; Henke et al. 1988); absence of sprouting grasses in Sal dominant forest may be
the cause behind absence. The highest abundance was found in Grassland with 0.272pellet
group per plot, followed by Khair-Sisoo association forest 0.192 and Riverine forest 0.084.
Figure 6- Habitat wise abundance of Spotted deer
20
5.3.2 Barking deer
A total of 43 pellet groups of Barking deer with mean of 0.043 pellet group per plot were
observed. Barking deer were abundant in Khair- Sisoo association forest with highest mean
pellet group of 0.064 per plot, followed by grassland, Sal dominant forest and Riverine forest
with 0.06, 0.032 and 0.016 mean pellet group per plot respectively.
Figure 7- Habitat wise abundance of Barking deer
5.3.3 Hog deer
Hog deer was abundant only on grassland with mean pellet group of 0.03 per plot and not
recorded in 3 habitat types. According to Adhikari and Khadka (2009) Hog deer was
recorded with highest pellet group per plot in grassland but not entirely absent in other habitat
type also. Survey of limited number of plots and sampling after rainfall may be the cause
behind absence of pellet group in Khair-Sisoo association forest, Sal dominant forest and
Riverine forest.
21
Figure 8- Habitat wise abundance of Hog deer
5.3.4 Blue bull
A total of 9 pellet group of Blue bull with mean of 0.009 pellet group per plot were observed.
It were entirely absent in Khair-Sisoo association forest and Riverine forest, and recorded
with abundance of 0.012 and 0.024 mean pellet group per plot in grassland and Sal dominant
forest respectively. Survey of limited number of plots and sampling after rainfall may be the
cause behind absence of pellet group in Khair-Sisoo association forest and Riverine forest.
Figure 9- Habitat wise abundance of Blue bull
5.3.5 Langur
A total of 50 pisses of Langur were recorded with mean of 0.05 pisses group per plot.
Langur's pisses group was entirely absent in Khair- Sisoo association forest. The highest
22
mean pisses group abundance was recorded in Sal dominant forest with 0.072 pisses group
per plot followed by Riverine forest 0.068 and grassland 0.06 pisses groups per plot.
Figure 10- Habitat wise abundance of Langur
5.3.6 Wild boar
A total of 37 pellet groups of Wild boar with mean of 0.037 pellet group per plot were
observed. Wild boar was abundant in grassland with highest mean pellet group per plot of
0.06 followed by 0.052, 0.02 and 0.016 pellet groups per plot in Sal dominant forest, Khair
Sisoo association forest and Riverine forest respectively.
Figure 11- Habitat wise abundance of Wild boar
5.3.7 Rabbit
A total of 60 pellet groups of Rabbit with mean of 0.06 pellet groups per plot were observed
Rabbits were abundant in Khair- Sisoo association forest with highest mean pellet group of
23
0.128 pellet group per plot and followed by 0.068 and 0.044 pellet groups per plot in Riverine
forest and grassland; and not recorded in Sal dominant forest.
Figure 12- Habitat wise abundance of Rabbit
5.4 Habitat Preference
5.4.1 Habitat Wise Preference
The most preferred habitat of prey species was found to be grassland with 38.35 % preference
followed by 29.79%, 18.58% and 13.28% for Khair-Sisoo association forest, Riverine forest
and Sal dominant forest respectively.
Figure 13- Habitat preference by prey species
24
5.4.2 Species Wise Habitat Preference
Spotted deer’s preference was found highest in grassland which is followed by Khair-Sisoo
association forest and Riverine forest; Spotted deer’s pellet were not recorded in Sal
dominant forest. Spotted deer prefer newly burned Phantas as feeding habitats and rest time
spent in forest habitat (Moe 1993). The distribution of Blue bull is restricted only in Sal
dominant forest and grassland; recorded with high preference in Sal dominant forest. The
most preferred habitat of Barking deer was found to be Khair-Sisoo association forest
followed by grassland, Sal dominant forest and Riverine forest respectively. Dinerstein et al.
(1987) hypothesized that the small rumen to body size ratio of Barking deer and higher
nutritional requirement restrict this animal to forested habitat where fruits, leaves, flowers,
and buds are more abundant. Besides, its sedentary and shy nature along with anti-predator
strategy of being inconspicuous makes it concentrate more in dense forest than in open and
disturbed areas (cited in Thapa 2003).
Hog deer prefer grass- covered delta islands, or open phantas. During the day, Hog deer
shelter in tall grasslands (Dhungel and O’Gara 1991, cited in Naess & Andersen 1993). Hog
deer usually inhabit grassland, but are seldom seen in forest (Pokhrel 2005). The present
study results also supported this statement and Hog deer's pellets were recorded only in
grassland. Wild boar was found in all habitat types. Grassland and Sal dominant forests were
preferred habitat; similarly Riverine forest and Khair-Sisoo association forest were second
preferred habitat. Rabbit's pellets were found highest in Khair-Sisoo association forest
followed by Riverine forest and grassland. Langur was found highest in Sal dominant forest
followed by Riverine forest and grassland.
Figure 14- Habitat Preference (%) by Prey Species
25
5.5 Distribution Pattern
Habitat influencing factors needs to be known for species conservation. Distribution pattern
of prey is one of the means for relating with distribution pattern of Tiger. Distribution pattern
of prey in different habitat types was calculated and found to be of clumped type which was
verified by calculating variance and mean ratio (S2/a). The value obtained was,
S2/a= 4.15
Since the value obtained is greater than 1. So we can conclude that distribution pattern of
prey is of the clumped type.
26
Chapter- VI
Corridor Conservation Issues and Recommendations
The result of this section is drawn based on interview taken with different stakeholders for
e.g. CFCC staffs, RP staffs, NTNC staffs, BNP staffs and local users also. Establishment of
national parks, wildlife reserves, conservation areas and their buffer zone tends to meet the
needs of safe life for wildlife and in other hand overlook the needs and aspiration of rural
people living within them or near by. So as to maintain the migratory behavior and genetic
exchange, synchronized Corridor Conservation Act is necessary. In 1980, 500 households
were settled in this corridor forest near Kothiyaghat coming from Sanoshree of Surkhet.
Before 1990 there were high movement of wildlife and very dense forest in present corridor
area but due to deforestation, degradation and encroachment during conflict period forest area
decreased largely. Now both forest areas and movement of wildlife is as near as of before
1990 (Communication with CFCC staff). If we would not be able to continue for conserving
corridor area; inbreeding within the species, chances of disease spreading and migrating
behavior of wildlife may be hindered.
Excessive pressure on corridor forest, encroachment, over grazing, over exploitation of forest
resources, poaching, low conservation awareness, lack of clear demarcation, and inadequate
financial resources are the major problems faced by Bardia - Katarniyaghat corridor forest
area. Settlement of Dada Gaun and Patharvoji and invasion of alien species especially Lantna
camara have been identified as another major problem in conservation which is challenging
the management body in different manner. Lack of ownership feeling of the forest area by
the local people is another cause after these entire problems. These are helping directly or
indirectly to decrease density of prey base as well as Tiger.
Lack of clear-cut policy is the major issue of corridor and connectivity. Policy must include
local use right, participation of people, trans-boundary issues and private sector involvement.
The corridor policy should be formulated in holistic approach rather than reductionism to
ensure sustainable corridor conservation. Inadequate policy for monitoring the migratory
activities of mega fauna along trans- boarder region is another policy issue to be addressed
while discussing about policy.
27
The Bardia populations are estimated to have one Tiger in 37 km2 (Smith et al. 1997) but in
an average a single Tiger requires 50 km2 of good quality forest. It indicates that habitat is not
sufficient for Tiger.
Some recommendations are made here, based on my study which could be helpful for better
management of habitat for Tiger as well as other wildlife.
•
Field work on this type of study should be conducted before rainy season and
before the fire are set on for grassland management.
•
Waterhole formation program in and around corridor area should be
emphasized and continuity should be given which can serve as water source
for wildlife in dry season.
•
Effective program should be launched to stop the illegal activity like fodder
collection, fuel wood collection and over harvesting of forest products. Biogas
promotion, briquette use promotion, stall feeding, fodder seedling and hybrid
grass seed distribution program can minimize the pressure on corridor.
•
The settlement inside corridor should be resided in other places.
•
Appropriate action for invasion of alien species should be taken. Complete
removal and burning, controlled chemical use, biological control may be the
appropriate way.
•
Annual wildlife movement monitoring mechanism should be made. Effort and
commitment from stakeholders like DNPWC, WWF, and NTNC is necessary
for this task.
•
Local member of APU should be strengthen and timely trainings or motivation
activities needs to be conducted.
•
Global commitments are necessary for conserving Tiger like mega animals, so
appropriate global action plan is necessary to make at the moment.
•
Institutional strengthening and proper implementation are obligatory. Strong
mechanism from central level is essential for this.
•
Strict legal provision for poachers is necessary.
•
Prey base monitoring can provide valuable information in conservation as
well as in ecosystem management endeavor of the area so this type of studies
should be done regularly; which will be helpful to know status of prey base
and finally of the Tiger.
28
Many studies have been carried out regarding grassland vegetation and management issues
(encroachment, needs of local people, demand and supply of forest products) but very few
have been recorded for the forest vegetation and technical issues. So monitoring of
vegetation and wildlife, regarding forest habitat and study on technical (habitat, prey
predator relation, animal migration and movement, association of species, population trend)
issues is necessary and this may give information on management practices for habitat
improvement of prey base to support high density of endangered species like Tigers.
29
Chapter- VII
Conclusions
Pellet group count is one of the best methods used widely to determine the abundance of
ungulates. This is indirect method of census of ungulates possibly is the easy procedure, for
counting desired species in a time convenient compared to direct enumeration. Ungulates and
Tiger can be used as baseline data to initiate monitoring program. Present study observed low
abundance of ungulates in Sal dominant forest in comparison to other habitat types.
Abundance of prey species is found higher in grassland and Khair-Sisoo association forest so
these can be considered as high quality habitat for prey species and needs to be managed
properly to maintain as good habitat for them, finally to stabilize the population of Tiger.
Similarly highest habitat preference was also found in the grassland. Distribution pattern of
prey species was found to be of clumped type with highest pellet group recorded in grassland,
this shows that prey base distribution is highest in grassland with clumped type.
Threats to these preys were their habitat used for livestock grazing, human encroachment to
fulfill their basic needs of fuel wood and fodder, and poaching. Grazing alters the
composition of the plant community, increases the nutritive quality of forage, increase
productivity of only selected species and increases it and finally alters the natural structure.
So these activities have to be addressed and management should be undertaken immediately
for the overall management of this corridor. If these current threats are not minimized it will;
certainly create abandon wild from their natural habitat. Settlement of Dada Gaun and
Patharvoji needs to be resettled in other areas in order to decrease their dependency in
corridor. People themselves are also interested to shift in other place. In this corridor variety
of habitat is found and stratified into four types to make easy for studying by formation of
transect. Relative index of prey species was found out to be 0.344 mean pellets per 10 Sq, m
plot. Comparing to previous data, mean pellet density per plot is reduced. Exclusion of
livestock in my study may the cause behind it, similarly survey of limited plots and field
work subsequent to rainfall may be another cause. High distribution and abundance suggested
the grassland areas of this corridor are good habitat for wild ungulate species that explains
presence of good number of Tiger.
30
Reference
Adhikari, S. and A. Khadka, (2009). Study on relative abundance and distribution of Tiger
prey base( ungulates) in Khata corridor , Bardia national park. Kathmandu University,
journal of science, engineering and technology. Vol . 5, No. I, Jan, 2009, pp 121- 135.
Anonymous, (1999). Tiger conservation action plan for the kingdom of Nepal. Department
of national parks and wildlife conservation, HMG, Kathmandu.
Anonymous, (2000). Corridors of life; weaving a life of wildlife habitat in the northern
rockies, 40 E. Main street, suite 2, Bozeman.www.wildlands.org.
Anonymous, (2001). Nepal biodiversity landscape project. proceedings of national stake
holder's consultation meeting organized by HMG/MFSC/UNDP/GEF/SNV.
Anonymous, (2002). WTLC, Nepal biodiversity
HMG/MFSC/UNDP/SNV/WWF, Kathmandu.
landscape
project;
the
then
Anonymous, (2002). WWF Nepal, status distribution and monitoring of Tiger populations in
Terai Arc landscape (TAL)- Nepal. A photographic documentation of camera- trapped
Tigers.
Anonymous, (2007). Tiger Conservation Action Plan for Nepal, Kathmandu. 96pp.
Bagale, R.P., (2005). A study on Tiger- prey relationship in Chitwan National Park.
Bagchi, S., S.P. Goyal, and K. Sankar, (2003). Prey abundance and prey selection by Tigers
(Panthera tigris) in semi arid, dry deciduous forest in western India. Journal of zoology, 260,
285-290.
Bailey, R.E., and R.J. Putnam, (1981). Estimation of fallow deer (Dama dama) populations
from fecal accumulations. Journal of Applied Ecology 18: 697-702.
Barnes, R.F.W., (2001). How reliable are dung counts for estimating elephant numbers?
African Journal of Ecology 39(1) 1-9, 2001.
Barnes, R.F.W., (2002). The problem of precision and trend detection posed by small
elephant populations in west Africa. African Journal of Ecology 40: 179-185.
Barnes, R.F.W., K. Beardsley, F. Michelmore, K.L.Barnes, M.P.T. Alers, and A. Blom,
(1997). Estimating forest elephant numbers with dung counts and a geographic information
system. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 1384-1393.
Basnet, K., (2003). Trans boundary biodiversity conservation initiative. An example from
Nepal. In trans boundary protected areas; the viability of regional conservation strategies,
food products press, an imprint of the Haworth Press in New York, London.
Beier, P., (1993). Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars.
conservation biology.
31
Beier, P. and S. Loe, (1992). A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement
corridors. wildlife society bulletin 20.
Bennet, A.F., (1998). Linkages in landscapes; the role of corridors and connectivity in the
wildlife conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. . Journal of Wildlife
Management 4:398-403.
Bennet, L.J; P.F. English, and R. McCain, (1940). A study of deer populations by use of
pellet-group counts
Braack, E.O., (2005). African trans frontier conservation areas, real benefits to agriculture
and rural development.
Collins, W.B., and P.J. Urness, (1981). Habitat preference of mule deer as rated by pelletgroup distribution. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:969-972.
Collins, W.B., and P.J. Urness, (1984). The pellet group census techniques as an indicator of
relative habitat use: respond to Leopold et al. Wildlife Society Bulletin n12:327.
Diamond, J.M., (1975). The island dilemma: lessons of modern Biogeographic studies for the
designs of natural reserves. Biological conservation. 7:129-146.
Dhungel, S.K. and B.W. Gara, (1991). Ecology of the Hog deer in Royal Chitwan national
park, Nepal. Wildlife monograph No. 119. Wildlife society, Bethesda, MD.
Dinerstein, E., (1979). An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali- Bardia wildlife reserve,
Nepal. Part II: habitat/ animal interaction. Biological conservation. 16: 265-300.
Dinerstein, E., A. Rijal, Bookbinder, M.B. Kattel, and A. Rajuria, (1987). Tiger as neighbors;
efforts to promote local guardianship of endangered species in lowland, Nepal. Riding the
Tiger. Cambridge University press. 316pp.
Eberhardt, L.L., and R.C. Van Etten, (1956). Evaluation of the pellet group count as a deer
census method. Journal of Wildlife Management 20: 70-74.
Eberhardt, L.L., and M.A. Simmons, (1987). Calibrating population indices by double
sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:665-675.
Edge, W.D., and C.L. Marcum, (1989). Determining elk distribution with pellet group and
telemetry techniques. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:621-624.
Elliott, H. W. and R. H. Barrett, (1985). Dietary overlap among axis, fallow, and black-tailed
deer and cattle. J. Range Manage. 38:546-550.
Freddy, D.J., and D.C. Bowden, (1983). Sampling mule deer pellet group densities in
Juniper-Pinyon woodland. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:476-485.
Fuller, T.K., (1991). Do pellet count index white tailed deer numbers and populations
change? Journal of Wildlife Management 55:393-396.
32
Fuller, T.K., (1992). Do pellet count index white tailed deer numbers and populations
change? A reply. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:613.
Harkonen, S., and R. Heikkila, (1999). Use of pellet group counts in determining density and
habitat use of moose Alces alces in Finland. Wildlife Biology 5: 233-239.
Henke, Scott E., Stephen Demarais & James A. Pfister, (1988). Digestive capacity and diets
of white-tailed deer and exotic ruminants. J. Wildl. Manage. 52:595-598.
Jnawali, S.R. and P. Wegge. (1993). Space and Rabbit use by a small re-introduced
population of greater one horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Royal Bardia
National park, Nepal. Pages 2008-2017 in O.A. Ryder, editor. Rhinoceros biology and
conservation.
Jha P.K., S. Parajuli, S.N. Jha and P. Lamsal, (2001). Nepal landscape biodiversity project;
Bardia- Suklaphanta landscape complex ( draft report).
Johnsingh, A.J.T., K. Ramesh, Q. Qureshi, A. David, S.P. Goyal, G.S. Rawat, K.
Rajapandian, and S. Prasad, (2004). Conservation status of Tiger and associated species in
Terai Arc Landscape, India. Wildlife Institute of India, India.
Karanth, K.U. and J.D. Nichols, (2002). Monitoring Tigers and their prey. A manual for
researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia . Centre for wildlife studies,
Banglore.
Karanth, K.U. and B.M. Stith, (1999). Prey depletion as a critical determinant of Tiger
population viability in J. Seidensticker, S. Christie, and P. Jackson, editors. Riding the Tiger:
Tiger conservation in human dominated landscapes. Cambridge press, Cambridge United
Kingdom.
Karanth, K.U. and , M. Sunquist, (1995). Prey selection by Tiger, Leopord and Dhole in
tropical forest. Journal of animal ecology.
Karki, J.B., S.R. Jnawali, R. Shrestha, M.B. Pandey, G. Gurung and M. Thapa (Karki),
(2009). Tiger and their prey base in Terai Arc Landscape.
Kharel, S., (2003). Wildlife corridor mapping between Royal Bardia national park, Nepal and
Katarniyaghat wildlife reserve, India by using GIS. M.Sc. Thesis submitted to Kathmandu
University.
Komers, P.E.B. and N.M. Peter, (1997). Dung pellets used to identify the distribution and
density of dik-dik. African Journal of Ecology 35(2): 124-132, 1997.
Krebs, C.J., R. Boonstra, V.Nams, M. O’Donoghue, K.E. Hodges, and S. Boutin, (2001).
Estimating snowshoe hare population density from pellet plots: a further evaluation.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 1-4.
Loft, E.R., and J.G. Kie, (1988). Comparison of pellet-group and ratio triangulation methods
for assessing deer habitat use. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 524-527.
33
Marques,F.F.C., S.T. Buckland, D. Goffin, C.E. Dixon, D.L. Borchers, B.A. Mayle, and A.J.
Peace, (2001). Estimating deer abundance from line transects surveys of dung: Sika deer in
southern Scotland. Journal of Applied ecology 38: 349-363.
Naesse, K.M. and, H.J. Andersen, (1993). Assessing census techniques for wild ungulates in
Royal Bardia national park, Nepal. A thesis submitted to the Agricultural University of
Norway in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
management and conservation of natural resources.
Neff, D.J., (1968). The pellet- group count technique for big game trend, census, and
distribution: a review. Journal of Wildlife Management 32: 597-614.
Noss, R.F., H.B. Quigley, M.G. Hornocker, T. Merril, and P.C. Paquet, (1996). Conservation
biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation biology 10:949963.
Odum, E.P., (1996). Fundamental of Ecology. Third Edition, Nataraj Publishers, Dehradun,
India.
Plumptre, A.J., and S. Harris, (1995). Estimating the biomass of large mammalian herbivore
in tropical montane forest: a method of fecal counting that avoids assuming a ‘steady state’
system. Journal of Applied Ecology 32(1): 111-120, 1995.
Pokhrel, C.P., (1996). Food and habitat utilization of Swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli) in the
Bardia national park, Nepal. M.Sc. dissertation, Tribhuwan University, Nepal.
Pokharel, S., (2005). Distribution and abundance of wild ungulates in Royal Suklaphanta
Wildlife Reserve , Nepal. M.Sc. dissertation, Tribhuvan University, Nepal.
Poudyal, A.S., (2000). Wildlife corridor management: analysis of biodiversity and
socioeconomic in the buffer zone of the Royal Bardia national park, Nepal. MSc thesis, AIT
Bangkok.
Rosenberg, D.K., B.R. Noon and E.C. Meslow, (1997). Biological corridors: form, function,
and efficacy. Bioscience .
Schaller, G.B., (1967). The deer and the Tiger. University Chicago press, Chicago.
Shafer, C.L., (1999). US National Park, Buffer Zone: Historical Scientific, Social and Legal
Aspects. Environmental Management. 23:49-73.
Sherpa, M., (2001). Terai Arc: A landscape approach to manage protected areas in protected
area management in south Asia. IUCN Kathmandu.
Shrestha, K.K., P.K. Jha and S.K. Ghimire, (1997). Plant diversity analysis and evaluation of
conservation measure in the Royal Bardia national park, Nepal. Research report. WWF,
Nepal program.
Shrestha, M.K. (2004). Relative ungulate abundance in a fragmented landscape implication
for Tiger conservation. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of graduate school of the
34
University of Minnesota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
Shrestha S. (2008). Study on relative abundance and distribution of Tiger prey base species
by pellet count in Suklaphanta wildlife reserve Nepal. A dissertation submitted to department
of environmental science and engineering of the school of science at Kathmandu University
for partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Bachelor of Science degree in environment
science.
Smith, B.N., and W.V. Brown, (1973). The Kranz syndrome in the gramineae as indicated by
carbon isotopic ratios. American journal of botany. 60, 505-513.
Smith, J.L.D.,(1984). Dispersal communication, and conservation strategies for the Tiger
(Panthera tigris) in Royal Chitwan national park, Nepal. PP 155, Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota USA.
Smith, J.L.D., S.C.Ahearn and C. Mc Dougal, (1997). Landscape analysis of Tiger
distribution and habitat quality in Nepal. Conservation biology 12, 1997: 1-9.
Smith, J.L.D.,S.C. Ahearn, and C. McDougal, (1998). Landscape analysis of Tiger
distribution and habitat quality in Nepal. Conservation Biology 12: 1338-1346.
Sunquist, M.E., (1981). Social organization of Tigers (Panthera tigris) in Royal Chitwan
national park, Nepal.
Sunquist, M.E. and F.C. Sunquist, (1989). Ecological constraints on predation by large Felids
in : Gittleman, JL (Ed.), carnivore behavior, ecology and evolution. Chapman and Hall,
London.
Tak, P. C. & B. S. Lamba, (1984). Ecology and ethology of the Spotted deer, Axis axis axis
(Erxleben) (Artiodactyla: Cervidae). Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional
Paper No. 43. 100 p.
Thapa, B., (2003). Habitat heterogenity and distribution of some ungulates prey species in
Barandabhar forest Chitwan, Nepal.
Van Etten, R.C., and C.L.J. Bennet, (1965). Some sources of error in using pellet-group
counts for censusing deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 29: 723-729.
Vernes, K., (1999). Pellet counts to estimate density of rainforest Kangaroo. Wildlife society
Bulletin 27:991-996.
Walsh, P.D., L.J.T. White, C, Mbina, D. Idiata, Y.Mihindou, F. Maisels, and M. Thibault,
(2001). Estimates of forest elephant abundance: projecting the relationship between precision
and effort. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 217-228.
Wegge, P., (1976). Terai Shikhar Reserves: survey reports and management proposals. FAO
Project Nepal Field Document No. 4, Kathmandu, Nepal.
35
Wegge, P., M. Odden, C.P. Pokharel and T. Storass, (2009). Predator prey relationship and
responses of ungulates and their predators to the establishment of protected areas. A case
study of Tigers, Leopords and their prey in Bardia national park, Nepal. Biological
conservation, 142, 189-202.
White, G.C.,(1992). Do pellet count index white tailed deer numbers and population change?
A comment. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:611-612.
Wilson, E.D. and E.D. Wills, (1975). Applied biogeography. Ecology and evolution of
communities. Belknap press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
36
Annexes
A. List of Tables
Species
Total Pellet Groups
Total Plots
Density/ 10 sq. m
Spotted deer
137
1000
0.137
Langur
50
1000
0.050
Blue bull
9
1000
0.009
Rabbit
60
1000
0.06
Barking deer
43
1000
0.043
Wild boar
37
1000
0.037
Hog deer
3
1000
0.003
Table 1: Species wise overall mean pellets density of prey species
Spotted Deer
Habitat Type
No of Pellets
No of Plots
Density/.10 Sq m
Grassland
68
250
0.272
Riverine Forest
21
250
0.084
Sal Dominant Forest
0
250
0
250
0.192
1000
0.548
Khair- Sisoo association 48
forest
Total
137
Table 2: Mean pellet density of Spotted deer by habitat type
Langur
Habitat Type
No of Pisses
No of Plots
Density/.10 Sq m
Grassland
15
250
0.06
Riverine Forest
17
250
0.068
Sal Dominant Forest
18
250
0.072
250
0
1000
0.2
Khair- Sisoo association 0
forest
Total
50
Table 3: Mean piss density of Langur by habitat type
37
Blue bull
Habitat Type
No of Pellets
No of Plots
Density/.10 Sq m
Grassland
3
250
0.012
Riverine Forest
0
250
0
Sal Dominant Forest
6
250
0.024
Khair- Sisoo association 0
250
0
1000
0.036
forest
Total
9
Table 4: Mean pellet density of Blue bull by habitat type
Rabbit
Habitat Type
No of Pellets
No of Plots
Density/.10 Sq m
Grassland
11
250
0.044
Riverine Forest
17
250
0.068
Sal Dominant Forest
0
250
0
250
0.128
1000
0.24
Khair- Sisoo association 32
forest
Total
60
Table 5: Mean pellet density of Rabbit by habitat type
Barking deer
Habitat Type
No of Pellets
No of Plots
Density/.10 Sq m
Grassland
15
250
0.06
Riverine Forest
4
250
0.016
Sal Dominant Forest
8
250
0.032
250
0.064
1000
0.172
Khair- Sisoo association 16
forest
Total
43
Table 6: Mean pellet density of Barking deer by habitat type
38
Wild boar
Habitat Type
No of Pellets
No of Plots
Density/.10 Sq m
Grassland
15
250
0.06
Riverine Forest
4
250
0.016
Sal Dominant Forest
13
250
0.052
250
0.02
1000
0.148
Khair- Sisoo association 5
forest
Total
37
Table 7: Mean pellet density of Wild boar by habitat type
Hog deer
Habitat Type
No of Pellets
No of Plots
Density/.10 Sq m
Grassland
3
250
0.012
Riverine Forest
0
250
0
Sal Dominant Forest
0
250
0
Khair- Sisoo association 0
250
0
1000
0.012
forest
Total
3
Table 8: Mean pellet density of Hog deer by habitat type
Habitat Type
No of Pellets
No of Plots
Density/10 Sq.m
Grassland
130
250
0.52
Riverine Forest
63
250
0.252
Sal Dominant Forest
45
250
0.18
250
0.404
1000
1.356
Khair- Sisoo association 101
forest
Total
339
Table 9: Habitat wise total density of prey pellets
39
Habitat
Grassland
Riverine Forest
Spotted deer
Langur
Blue bull
Rabbit
Barking deer
Wild boar
Hog deer
Total
0.272
0.06
0.012
0.044
0.06
0.06
0.012
0.52
0.084
0.068
0
0.068
0.016
0.016
0
0.252
Sal Dominant Khair- Sisoo
Forest
association
forest
0
0.192
0.072
0
0.024
0
0
0.128
0.032
0.064
0.052
0.072
0
0
0.18
0.456
Overall
Density
0.548
0.2
0.036
0.24
0.064
0.2
0.012
1.40
Table 10: Species wise total density of prey pellets
Species
Spotted
Deer
Langur
Blue bull
Rabbit
Barking
deer
Wild boar
Hog deer
Habitat
Type
GL
RIV
SDF
KSF
GL
RIV
SDF
KSF
GL
RIV
SDF
KSF
GL
RIV
SDF
KSF
GL
RIV
SDF
KSF
GL
RIV
SDF
KSF
GL
RIV
SDF
KSF
No of
Plots with
Plots
Pellets
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
68
21
0
48
15
17
18
0
3
0
6
0
11
17
0
32
15
4
8
16
15
4
13
5
3
0
0
0
Individual Total Habitat Preference
(%)
(%)
(%)
27.2
54.8
49.64
8.4
54.8
15.33
0
54.8
0.00
19.2
54.8
35.04
6
20
30.00
6.8
20
34.00
7.2
20
36.00
0
20
0.00
1.2
3.6
33.33
0
3.6
0.00
2.4
3.6
66.67
0
3.6
0.00
4.4
24
18.33
6.8
24
28.33
0
24
0.00
12.8
24
53.33
6
17.2
34.88
1.6
17.2
9.30
3.2
17.2
18.60
6.4
17.2
37.21
6
14.8
40.54
1.6
14.8
10.81
5.2
14.8
35.14
2
14.8
13.51
1.2
1.2
100.00
0
1.2
0.00
0
1.2
0.00
0
1.2
0.00
Table 11: Habitat preference shown by prey species
40
Group of
Transects
Observed
Value (O)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total
Mean
Expected Value
λ2=(O(E)
O-E
(O-E)2 E)2/E
27
16.95
10.05 101.00
5.96
27
16.95
10.05 101.00
5.96
23
26
27
11
23
3
19
7
18
28
22
18
15
11
3
18
9
4
339
16.95
Distribution
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
6.05
9.05
10.05
-5.95
6.05
-13.95
2.05
-9.95
1.05
11.05
5.05
1.05
-1.95
-5.95
-13.95
1.05
-7.95
-12.95
36.60
81.90
101.00
35.40
36.60
194.60
4.20
99.00
1.10
122.10
25.50
1.10
3.80
35.40
194.60
1.10
63.20
167.70
1406.95
Variance
70.35
2.16
4.83
5.96
2.09
2.16
11.48
0.25
5.84
0.07
7.20
1.50
0.07
0.22
2.09
11.48
0.07
3.73
9.89
83.01
4.15
Table 12: Calculating Chi square Test Transect Wise
Species
Khair- Sisoo
Grassland forest
Spotted
deer
Langur
Blue bull
Rabbit
Barking
deer
Count
Expected
count
Count
Expected
count
Count
Expected
count
Count
Expected
count
Count
Expected
Habitat
Sal dominant
forest
Riverine forest
Total
68
48
0
21
137
52.54
15
40.82
0
18.19
18
25.46
17
137
50
19.17
3
14.90
0
6.64
6
9.29
0
50
9
3.45
11
2.68
32
1.19
0
1.67
17
9
60
23.01
17.88
7.96
11.15
60
15
16.49
16
12.81
8
5.71
4
7.99
43
43
41
count
Wild
boar
Hog deer
Total
Count
Expected
count
Count
Expected
count
Count
Expected
count
15
5
13
4
37
14.19
3
11.02
0
4.91
0
6.88
0
37
3
1.15
130
0.89
101
0.40
45
0.56
63
3
339
130
101
45
63 339.000
Table 13: Calculating Species wise Observed and Expected Count
Observed
Value(O)
68
48
0
21
15
0
18
17
3
0
6
0
11
32
0
17
15
16
8
4
15
5
13
4
3
0
0
0
339
Degree of
Freedom
Expected Value
(E)
O-E
(O-E)2
(O-E)2/E
52.54
15.46
239.01
4.55
40.82
7.18
51.55
1.26
18.19
-18.19
330.88
18.19
25.46
-4.46
19.89
0.78
19.17
-4.17
17.39
0.91
14.9
-14.9
222.01
14.90
6.64
11.36
129.05
19.44
9.29
7.71
59.44
6.40
3.45
-0.45
0.20
0.06
2.68
-2.68
7.18
2.68
1.19
4.81
23.14
19.44
1.67
-1.67
2.79
1.67
23.01
-12.01
144.24
6.27
17.88
14.12
199.37
11.15
7.96
-7.96
63.36
7.96
11.15
5.85
34.22
3.07
16.49
-1.49
2.22
0.13
12.81
3.19
10.18
0.79
5.71
2.29
5.24
0.92
7.99
-3.99
15.92
1.99
14.19
0.81
0.66
0.05
11.02
-6.02
36.24
3.29
4.91
8.09
65.45
13.33
6.88
-2.88
8.29
1.21
1.15
1.85
3.42
2.98
0.89
-0.89
0.79
0.89
0.4
-0.4
0.16
0.40
0.56
-0.56
0.31
0.56
339
145.26
18
Table 14: Calculating Chi Square test habitat wise
42
B.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Ist: Based on habitat type
This hypothesis was tested in order to determine the distribution pattern of prey base in
different habitat type, which can be helpful for determining the distribution of Tiger in
different habitat type.
Null hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant variation in distribution of Tiger prey species
according to habitat type.
Alternative hypothesis (H1): There is significant variation in distribution of Tiger prey species
according to habitat type.
Level of significance (α) = 0.10
Degree of freedom (v) = 18
Cal (λ2) =145.26
Tab (λ2) =25.989
Since Cal (λ2) > Tab (λ2) i.e. 145.26>25.989
Hence we reject the Ho and accept alternative hypothesis, i.e. there is significant variation in
distribution of Tiger prey species in different habitat type.
Hypothesis 2nd: Based on group of transect
This hypothesis was tested to determine the distribution pattern of prey base in every habitat
type according to site or the group of transects measured.
Null hypothesis Ho: There is no significant variation in distribution of Tiger prey species
according due to transect measured.
Alternative hypothesis H1: There is significant variation in distribution of Tiger prey species
due to transect measured.
Level of significance (α) = 0.10
Degree of freedom (v) = 19
Cal (λ2) = 83.01
Tab (λ2) =27.204
Since Cal (λ2) > Tab (λ2) i.e. 83.01>27.204
Hence we reject the Ho and accept alternative hypothesis, i.e. there is significant variation in
distribution of Tiger prey species due to transect measured.
43
C. Survey Sheet Form
Bardia- Katarniyaghat Corridor Forest: Prey Base Survey Sheet
Date
Elevation
Transect No
General Location
Forest Type- Sal/Riverine / Grassland/ Khair- Sisoo
Main Species
GPS Point ( Start):
Under storey Species
GPS Point ( End):
Direction (Bearing):
GPS Record
Habitat Category: Intact/ Degraded/Severely degraded
Canopy coverage: Open/ Closed …………..%
Lat
Long
No of Prey's Pellet Group
Plot
Tracks/
No
Cov Ct/Lp GZ
BD SD HD BB
LNG
RBT
WB Others dig
Rem
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
44
22
23
24
25
Cov- Coverage
SD- Spotted Deer
BB- Blue bull
Ct/Lp- Cutting/Lopping BD- Barking deer
LNG- Langur
GZ- Grazing
RBT- Rabbit
HD- Hog deer
WB- Wild boar
D. Checklist for Interview
1.
Where is livestock grazed?
2.
Any problem about grazing land?
3.
If yes can you suggest practical solutions?
4.
Which wildlife damages the crop of your farm land?
5.
What animal do you think reside permanently in the corridor forest?
6.
What is corridor and how do you distinguish it from buffer zone forest?
7.
Have you seen any wildlife using corridor forest to move?
8.
If yes state number, species and season.
9.
Do you think this corridor forest is safe for migration of wildlife?
10.
What should be done to make safe movement of wildlife?
11.
Why mega fauna/ long ranging mammals are taken in consideration of corridor
conservation?
12.
What are the bottlenecks and gaps in conservation?
13.
Do you know any program done by government or any other organizations for
corridor management?
14.
If yes who did what and when?
15.
Are you ready to participate in this type of program?
16.
What are the corridor conservation issues?
17.
What should be the policy for corridor conservation?
18.
How collaborative efforts can be managed for corridor conservation?
45
E. List of Maps
Figure 15- Map: Covering Corridor Area
46
Figure 16- Transects in 4 Habitat Types
47
Figure 17 Transects Taken in Sal Forest
48
F. List of Photo Plates
Photo 1- Pellets of Barking deer
Photo 2- Pellets of Spotted Deer
49
Photo 3- Pisses of Langur
Photo 4- Passageway: frequently used by Tiger, near Kothiyaghat (Evidence from local
people)
50