Estimation of tiger densities in the tropical dry forests of Panna, Central India, using photographic capture–recapture sampling

Abstract

Tropical dry-deciduous forests comprise more than 45% of the tiger (Panthera tigris) habitat in India. However, in the absence of rigorously derived estimates of ecological densities of tigers in dry forests, critical baseline data for managing tiger populations are lacking. In this study tiger densities were estimated using photographic capture-recapture sampling in the dry forests of Panna Tiger Reserve in Central India. Over a 45-day survey period, 60 camera trap sites were sampled in a well-protected part of the 542-km 2 reserve during 2002. A total sampling effort of 914 camera-trap-days yielded photo-captures of 11 individual tigers over 15 sampling occasions that effectively covered a 418-km 2 area. The closed capture-recapture model M h , which incorporates individual heterogeneity in capture probabilities, fitted these photographic capture history data well. The estimated capture probability/sample,p = 0.04, resulted in an estimated tiger population size and standard error (N (SÊN )) of 29 (9.65), and a density (D(SÊD)) of 6.94 (3.23) tigers/100 km 2 . The estimated tiger density matched predictions based on prey abundance. Our results suggest that, if managed appropriately, the available dry forest habitat in India has the potential to support a population size of about 9000 wild tigers.

Fish diversity and assemblage structure in Ken River of Panna landscape, central India

“…In terms of biome characteristics, it is classified as 'highrainfall dry deciduous forest' and is largely dependent on monsoon rainfall during July-September, which usually fluctuates within the range of 600-1100 mm (Jayapal et al 2007). Following the monsoon, there is a cool season until February, followed by dry summer when the temperature often exceeds 45 0 C (Karanth et al 2004). Water is a limiting factor during this season, even though, some stretches of streams inside the park hold some water as isolated pools.…”

A comparison of horizontal versus vertical camera placement to detect feral cats and mustelids

“…Numerous studies have used camera traps for large mammals such as leopard (Uncia uncia), jaguar (Panthera onca) and tiger (Panthera tigris) (Karanth et al 2004;Jackson et al 2006;Tobler et al 2008;Wang & Macdonald 2009), but only a handful have examined the optimal specifications for small to medium-sized species (e.g. De Bondi et al 2010;Glen et al 2013;Bischof et al 2014).…”

Estimating wild boar (Sus scrofa) abundance and density using capture–resights in Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

“…To partially minimize the effects of trapping, the resight of an animal can be considered as its actual recapture (Minta and Mangel 1989;Nichols 1992;Bowden and Kufeld 1995;White 1996;Schwarz and Seber 1999). Capture-resight (CR) models either depend on direct reobservations [e.g., lion Panthera leo (Castley et al 2002), brown bear Ursus arctos and black bear U. amercianus (Miller et al 1997), coyote Canis latrans (Hein and Andelt 1995), or elephant Loxodonta africana (Morley and van Aarde 2007)] or pictures taken by self-triggered camera traps [e.g., grizzly bear U. arctos horribilis (Mace et al 1994), lynx Lynx lynx (Zimmermann et al 2005), jaguar P. onca (Silver et al 2004), or tiger P. tigris (Karanth et al 2004)]. Unambiguous natural marks, such as fur patterns (Karanth 1995;Karanth and Nichols 1998), are often used to identify the sighted animals and establish their capture history (Otis et al 1978).…”