Spotted in the News: Using Media Reports to Examine Leopard Distribution, Depredation, and Management Practices outside Protected Areas in Southern India

Abstract

There is increasing evidence of large carnivore presence outside protected areas, globally. Although this spells conservation success through population recoveries, it makes carnivore persistence in human-use landscapes tenuous. The widespread distribution of leopards in certain regions of India typifies this problem. We obtained information on leopard-human interactions at a regional scale in Karnataka State, India, based on systematic surveys of local media reports. We applied an innovative occupancy modelling approach to map their distribution patterns and identify hotspots of livestock/human depredation. We also evaluated management responses like removals of ‘problem’ leopards through capture and translocations. Leopards occupied around 84,000 km2 or 47% of the State’s geographic area, outside designated national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. Their presence was facilitated by extent of vegetative cover- including irrigated croplands, rocky escarpments, and prey base in the form of feral and free-ranging dogs. Higher probabilities of livestock/human attacks by leopards were associated with similar ecological features as well as with capture/removals of leopards. Of the 56 cases of leopard removals reported, 91% did not involve human attacks, but followed livestock predation or only leopard sightings. The lack of knowledge on leopard ecology in human-use areas has resulted in unscientific interventions, which could aggravate the problem rather than mitigating it. Our results establish the presence of resident, breeding leopards in human-use areas. We therefore propose a shift in management focus, from current reactive practices like removal and translocation of leopards, to proactive measures that ensure safety of human lives and livelihoods.

Land‐sharing potential of large carnivores in human‐modified landscapes of western India

“…Since irrigated land cover has increased from 20,436 km 2 in 2001 to 42,675 km 2 in 2011 in the study area (District Census Handbook; http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/DCHB.html; accessed July 17, 2017), this represents a shift from typically wolf‐favoring habitats to potentially leopard‐favoring habitats. Leopard densities of 4.8 (SE = 1.2) have been documented in agricultural areas in this landscape (Athreya et al, ), and their presence has been documented in other production landscapes with prey elsewhere in the country (Athreya et al, ; Kshettry et al, ). Although dry grasslands have been representative habitats for wolves in India (Jethva & Jhala, ), seasonal agriculture better favored their presence compared to fragmented dry grasslands in the landscape.…”

“…For all three carnivore species, we selected covariates following a priori predictions based on field observations and published literature concerning their natural history (Table ). Broadly, we predicted that (a) leopard presence would be positively associated with higher degree of tree cover or permanent crop cover (because of the refuge it provides in human use landscapes) and abundance/densities of medium and large domestic prey, but negatively with urban habitation (Athreya et al, ; Kshettry et al, ), (b) wolf presence would be positively influenced by open dry habitats including grasslands, seasonal crop cover, abundance of antelope, and medium‐sized domestic prey, but negatively by forest cover and urban habitation (Habib & Kumar, ; Jethva & Jhala, ; M. Singh & Kumara, ), (c) hyena presence would be positively influenced by dry habitats with scrub cover, permanent crop cover like has been recorded in parts of the landscape, abundance of medium‐sized domestic prey and poultry farms, but negatively by open dry habitats and urban habitation (Athreya et al, ; P. Singh, Gopalaswamy, & Karanth, ).…”

“…Land conversions to agricultural use, accompanied by urbanization, have led to widespread modifications of arid and semiarid lands (Bestelmeyer et al, 2015;Ramankutty, Evan, Monfreda, & Foley, 2008). However, carnivores such as black bears Ursus americanus, cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus, wolves C. lupus pallipes, and jaguars Panthera onca have shown resilience and adapted to agricultural landscapes (Behdarvand et al, 2014;Blanco & Cortés, 2007;Boron et al, 2016;Ditmer et al, 2015;Winterbach, Winterbach, Boast, Klein, & Somers, 2015 4.8 (SE = 1.2) have been documented in agricultural areas in this landscape , and their presence has been documented in other production landscapes with prey elsewhere in the country (Athreya et al, 2015;Kshettry et al, 2017). Although dry grasslands have been representative habitats for wolves in India (Jethva & Jhala, 2004), seasonal agriculture better favored their presence compared to fragmented dry grasslands in the landscape.…”

Pangolin distribution and conservation status in Bangladesh

“…Media reports are often used to understand the status and distribution of threatened species [26]. Queries were performed through Google, Google Scholar, and Web of Knowledge seeking references to any verifiable pangolin reports within Bangladesh.…”

Opportunities for prioritizing and expanding conservation enterprise in India using carnivores as flagships

“…Mammalian carnivores represent a spectrum of habitat associations (Crooks et al 2011; Bateman & Fleming 2012), with some showing extremely high specificity (e.g., Ethiopian wolf Canis simensis in the highlands of Ethiopia) and others representing a range of eclectic land cover types (e.g., golden jackal Canis aureus ). Certain predators like the leopard Panthera pardus , coyote Canis latrans and puma Puma concolor even thrive in radically human-modified habitats, sometimes sharing space with high human densities (Gehrt & Riley 2010; Vynne et al 2011; Athreya et al 2015). Recent studies have also highlighted the variety of critical ecosystem services and benefits carnivores provide, all of which contribute towards human well-being through direct or indirect mechanisms (O’Bryan et al 2018).…”