Responses of tiger (Panthera tigris) and their prey to removal of anthropogenic influences in Rajaji National Park, India

Abstract

Presence of human settlements in most protected areas has forced tigers (Panthera tigris) to share space with humans. Creation of inviolate space for tigers in areas with high human densities is often daunting and requires hard political sacrifices. We conducted this study from 2004 to 2007 in the Chilla range of Rajaji National Park, along the northwestern portion of the Terai-Arc Landscape in the Indian subcontinent. Our objective was to document the recovery of prey and tiger populations following the resettlement of 193 gujjar (pastoralists with large buffalo holdings) families. We used distance sampling to estimate density of wild ungulate prey and camera traps to estimate tiger density. The study area supported ∼66 ungulates/km 2 , with chital (Axis axis) and sambar (Cervus unicolor) contributing >91%. While prey densities did not vary across 3 years, an increase in proportion of chital fawns was observed following the near complete removal of livestock. We also documented an increase in the density b D of tigers (from three to five tigers per 100 km 2 ), probably due to immigrating tigers from nearby Corbett Tiger Reserve. A high turnover of individual tigers was observed during the study. With photographic evidence of breeding tigers in Chilla range, we believe that this area could serve as a source population from where tigers can colonize adjoining forests across River Ganga. It is therefore concluded that securing the connectivity between forests on the east and west bank of Ganga through the tenuous Chilla-Motichur corridor assumes significance for long-term persistence of tigers within this landscape.

Threatened predator on the equator: multi-point abundance estimates of the tiger Panthera tigris in central Sumatra

“…A similar result was documented in Rajaji National Park, India, where tiger density increased following the removal of anthropogenic influences (Harihar et al, 2009), showing that strong protection can be effective in maintaining a high density of tigers (Karanth & Nichols, 1998;Karanth et al, 2004;Ahmed et al, 2010).…”

Abundance of Large Carnivore and its Prey Species after Removal of Cattle Grazing in Mundanthurai Plateau of Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu, India

“…Their ability to feed on both small and large prey, to climb trees and scavenge [24] helps to survive in a highly disturbed habitat where prey is scarce. Leopard density determined in our study is fairly high in comparison to other reported estimates in the country [25][26][27] and it can survive with smaller prey such as rodents and langurs [28]. Though the study could not estimate the actual density of Asiatic wild dog, there could be 5 packs (Avg pack size 6 ≤ 3) operating in the Plateau area.…”

Population density and biomass of the wild prey species in a tropical deciduous forest, Central India

“…Besides this reason, after 2006, several tribal villages have voluntarily vacated from the core area of the Park, resulting in the recovery of native vegetation and wildlife contributing to undisturbed habitat. Earlier studies also document similar recoveries in tiger population (Dinerstein et al, 1999;Dinerstein, 2003;Harihar et al, 2009;Karanth & Sunquist, 1992). It is evident that ensuring long-term conservation of the prey base requires formulating and implementing appropriate management interventions to eliminate / minimize anthropogenic disturbances.…”

“…In total, 34 line transects covering 340km were walked during the survey period. The line transects varied in length from 1.8-2.5km and were laid out following a stratified random design within the study area (Harihar et al, 2009). On every walk we recorded the encountered species and their group size; sighting angle measured using a hand-held compass and sighting distance measured by a laser range finder (Jathanna et al, 2003).…”

“…Distance sampling by line transect method is more robust as it allows a more accurate estimate of population size than other methods, and it addresses detectability issues (Buckland et al, 2001;Jathanna et al, 2003). Moreover, the method has been proved to work well in tropical forests of the Indian subcontinent (Harihar et al, 2009;Karanth & Nichols, 2002;Narasimmarajan et al, 2012). Distance sampling offers a reliable estimation of animal densities comparable to results of the mark-recapture method, and has also proven to be cost-effective and less invasive (Kumara et al, 2012).…”