Even with global support for tiger (Panthera tigris) conservation their survival is threatened by poaching, habitat loss and isolation. Currently about 3,000 wild tigers persist in small fragmented populations within seven percent of their historic range. Identifying and securing habitat linkages that connect source populations for maintaining landscape-level gene flow is an important long-term conservation strategy for endangered carnivores. However, habitat corridors that link regional tiger populations are often lost to development projects due to lack of objective evidence on their importance. Here, we use individual based genetic analysis in combination with landscape permeability models to identify and prioritize movement corridors across seven tiger populations within the Central Indian Landscape. By using a panel of 11 microsatellites we identified 169 individual tigers from 587 scat and 17 tissue samples. We detected four genetic clusters within Central India with limited gene flow among three of them. Bayesian and likelihood analyses identified 17 tigers as having recent immigrant ancestry. Spatially explicit tiger occupancy obtained from extensive landscape-scale surveys across 76,913 km2 of forest habitat was found to be only 21,290 km2. After accounting for detection bias, the covariates that best explained tiger occupancy were large, remote, dense forest patches; large ungulate abundance, and low human footprint. We used tiger occupancy probability to parameterize habitat permeability for modeling habitat linkages using least-cost and circuit theory pathway analyses. Pairwise genetic differences (F ST) between populations were better explained by modeled linkage costs (r>0.5, p<0.05) compared to Euclidean distances, which was in consonance with observed habitat fragmentation. The results of our study highlight that many corridors may still be functional as there is evidence of contemporary migration. Conservation efforts should provide legal status to corridors, use smart green infrastructure to mitigate development impacts, and restore habitats where connectivity has been lost.

As ecological data and associated analyses become more widely available, synthesizing results for effective communication with stakeholders is essential. In the case of wildlife corridors, managers in human‐dominated landscapes need to identify both the locations of corridors and multiple stakeholders for effective oversight. We synthesized five independent studies of tiger (Panthera tigris) connectivity in central India, a global priority landscape for tiger conservation, to quantify agreement on landscape permeability for tiger movement and potential movement pathways. We used the latter analysis to identify connectivity areas on which studies agreed and stakeholders associated with these areas to determine relevant participants in corridor management. Three or more of the five studies’ resistance layers agreed in 63% of the study area. Areas in which all studies agree on resistance were of primarily low (66%, e.g., forest) and high (24%, e.g., urban) resistance. Agreement was lower in intermediate resistance areas (e.g., agriculture). Despite these differences, the studies largely agreed on areas with high levels of potential movement: >40% of high average (top 20%) current‐flow pixels were also in the top 20% of current‐flow agreement pixels (measured by low variation), indicating consensus connectivity areas (CCAs) as conservation priorities. Roughly 70% of the CCAs fell within village administrative boundaries, and 100% overlapped forest department management boundaries, suggesting that people live and use forests within these priority areas. Over 16% of total CCAs’ area was within 1 km of linear infrastructure (437 road, 170 railway, 179 transmission line, and 339 canal crossings; 105 mines within 1 km of CCAs). In 2019, 78% of forest land diversions for infrastructure and mining in Madhya Pradesh (which comprises most of the study region) took place in districts with CCAs. Acute competition for land in this landscape with globally important wildlife corridors calls for an effective comanagement strategy involving local communities, forest departments, and infrastructure planners.

An understanding of the distribution range and status of a species is paramount for its conservation. We used photo captures from 26,838 camera traps deployed over 121,337 km2 along with data from radio-telemetry, published, and authenticated wolf sightings to infer wolf locations. A total of 3,324 presence locations were obtained and after accounting for spatial redundancy 574 locations were used for modeling in maximum entropy framework (MaxEnt) with ecologically relevant covariates to infer potentially occupied habitats. Relationships of wolf occurrence with eco-geographical variables were interpreted based on response curves. Wolves avoided dense wet forests, human disturbances beyond a threshold, arid deserts, and areas with high top-carnivore density, but occurred in semi-arid scrub, grassland, open forests systems with moderate winter temperatures. The potential habitat that can support wolf occupancy was 364,425 km2 with the largest wolf habitat available in western India (Saurashtra-Kachchh-Thar landscape 102,837 km2). Wolf habitats across all landscapes were connected with no barriers to dispersal. Breeding packs likely occurred in ≈89,000 km2. Using an average territory size of 188 (SE 23) km2, India could potentially hold 423–540 wolf packs. With an average adult pack size of 3 (SE 0.24), and a wolf density &lt; 1 per 100 km2 in occupied but non-breeding habitats, a wolf population of 3,170 (SE range 2,568–3,847) adults was estimated. The states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra were major strongholds for the species. Within forested landscapes, wolves tended to avoid top-carnivores but were more sympatric with leopards and dhole compared to tigers and lions. This ancient wolf lineage is threatened by habitat loss to development, hybridization with dogs, fast-traffic roads, diseases, and severe persecution by pastoralists. Their status is as precarious as that of the tiger, yet focused conservation efforts are lacking. Breeding habitat patches within each landscape identified in this study should be made safe from human persecution and free of feral dogs so as to permit packs to breed and successfully recruit individuals to ensure wolf persistence in the larger landscape for the long term.