Recovery of globally threatened ungulate species in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand

Saisamorn, Apinya; Duangchantrasiri, Somphot; Sornsa, Mayuree; Suksavate, Warong; Pattanavibool, Anak; Duengkae, Prateep

doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03012

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is coincide with the prediction by Jornburom et al (2020) that, if poaching and other human distance in the area is controlled, some habitat in other protected areas next to HKK can support bantengs (Figure 3). In recent years, bantengs in HKK has significantly density increased from 0.83 in 2007 to 1.71 in 2022 (Saisamorn et al, 2024).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…( 2020 ) that, if poaching and other human distance in the area is controlled, some habitat in other protected areas next to HKK can support bantengs (Figure 3 ). In recent years, bantengs in HKK has significantly density increased from 0.83 in 2007 to 1.71 in 2022 (Saisamorn et al., 2024 ). The dispersal of bantengs from HKK into Mae Wong National Park, next to the north of HKK, was the first evidence of bantengs dispersing out of HKK (Phoonjampa et al., 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Expert opinion believed that HKK contained the population of 400-500 individuals (Chaichanathong et al, 2021;Phoonjampa et al, 2021). However, Saisamorn et al (2024), with rigorous sampling methodology, have reported that banteng population in HKK has recovered to almost 3000 individuals due mainly good protection from poaching in the last 15 years. Jornburom et al (2020) attempted to predict the potential distribution of banteng in WEFCOM and suggested that if poaching was effectively reduced, banteng can disperse from HKK into the Thung Yai Naresuan West Wildlife Sanctuary (TYW).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Saisamorn et al. ( 2024 ), with rigorous sampling methodology, have reported that banteng population in HKK has recovered to almost 3000 individuals due mainly good protection from poaching in the last 15 years. Jornburom et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

First dispersal records of the endangered banteng (Bos javanicus) in Thung Yai Naresuan West Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand

Amorntiyangkul,

Jornburom,

Pattanavibool

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Banteng (Bos javanicus) is listed as an endangered species because of a global population decline of at least 50% over the last 25 years. The Western Forest Complex (WEFCOM) of Thailand has been identified as a priority site for banteng population recovery, and Huai Kha Keang Wildlife Sanctuary (HKK) is the most important source site for this species within the WEFCOM. We have provided evidence and discussed banteng dispersal from HKK to Thung Yai Naresuan West Wildlife Sanctuary (TYW). We sampled an area of 147 km2 in banteng habitat next to the border between HKK and TYW using camera traps. We divided the sampled area into four grid cells and placed camera traps during January to December 2022. We setup the camera traps near saltlicks and natural water sources, as important resources for banteng, to maximize capture probability. In total, 2835 trap days were obtained. Bantengs were captured in all seasons (RAI = 1.66), especially in dry dipterocarp forest, which contains the ground forage availability for banteng, and the low‐slope area with elevation 600–700 m adjacent to the border between HKK and TYW. The results highlighted that banteng, which had never been reported in TYW before, appeared there for the first time. They most likely dispersed from the population source in HKK and settled in a habitat that is considered suitable for them. The habitat management and protection are significant for the future recovery of banteng populations in the TYW and the rest of protected areas in the WEFCOM.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

First dispersal records of the endangered banteng (Bos javanicus) in Thung Yai Naresuan West Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand

Amorntiyangkul,

Jornburom,

Pattanavibool

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cameras or Camus? Comparing Snow Track Surveys and Camera Traps to Estimate Densities of Unmarked Wildlife Populations

Waller,

Hebblewhite,

Brodie

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Population density is a valuable metric used to manage wildlife populations. In the Russian Far East, managers use the Formozov‐ Malyushev‐Pereleshin (FMP) snow tracking method to estimate densities of ungulates for hunting management. The FMP also informs Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) conservation since estimates of prey density and biomass help inform conservation interventions. Yet, climate change and challenges with survey design call into question the reliability of the FMP. Camera traps offer a promising alternative, but they remain unexplored for monitoring tiger prey density. Over three years (2020‐2022), we used the FMP and camera‐based methods to estimate densities of four prey species of the Amur tiger in the Sikhote‐ Alin Biosphere Reserve, Russian Far East: wild boar (Sus scrofa), red deer (Cervus canadensis), roe deer (Capreolus pygargus), and sika deer (Cervus nippon). We compared FMP results from snow track survey routes either along trails, or along routes representative of the study area, and estimates derived from camera data using the random encounter model (REM), space‐to‐event model (STE), and time‐to‐event model (TTE). We found that density estimates from representative routes were typically lower than routes along trails and indicated different relative densities of prey. Density estimates from camera traps and representative track surveys were generally similar with no significant relative bias, but precision was poor for all methods. Differences between estimates were amplified when converted to prey biomass, particularly with larger, more abundant prey, which poses a challenge for their utility for tiger managers. We conclude camera traps can offer an alternative to snow track surveys when monitoring unmarked prey, but we caution that they require considerably more resources to implement. Tiger managers should be especially cautious when extrapolating density to estimates of prey biomass, and we encourage future research to develop more robust methods for doing so.

show abstract

Recovery of globally threatened ungulate species in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand

Cited by 2 publications

References 34 publications

First dispersal records of the endangered banteng (Bos javanicus) in Thung Yai Naresuan West Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand

First dispersal records of the endangered banteng (Bos javanicus) in Thung Yai Naresuan West Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand

Cameras or Camus? Comparing Snow Track Surveys and Camera Traps to Estimate Densities of Unmarked Wildlife Populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About