Terrestrial Species in Protected Areas and Community-Managed Lands in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India

Abstract

Protected areas (including areas that are nominally fully protected and those managed for multiple uses) encompass about a quarter of the total tropical forest estate. Despite growing interest in the relative value of community-managed lands and protected areas, knowledge about the biodiversity value that each sustains remains scarce in the biodiversity-rich tropics. We investigated the species occurrence of a suite of mammal and pheasant species across four protected areas and nearby community-managed lands in a biodiversity hotspot in northeast India. Over 2.5 years we walked 98 transects (half of which were resampled on a second occasion) across the four paired sites. In addition, we interviewed 84 key informants to understand their perceptions of species trends in these two management regimes. We found that protected areas had higher overall species richness and were important for species that were apparently declining in occurrence. On a site-specific basis, community-managed lands had species richness and occurrences comparable to those of a protected area, and in one case their relative abundances of mammals were higher. Interviewees indicated declines in the abundances of larger-bodied species in community-managed lands. Their observations agreed with our field surveys for certain key, large-bodied species, such as gaur and sambar, which generally occurred less in community-managed lands. Hence, the degree to which protected areas and community-managed lands protect wildlife species depends upon the species in question, with larger-bodied species usually faring better within protected areas.

Strict protected areas are essential for the conservation of larger and threatened mammals in a priority region of the Brazilian Cerrado

“…We also demonstrated a strong positive impact of strict PAs on larger and threatened mammals, which seems to be part of a broader trend of large-bodied species benefitting more from strict protection than smaller species (Drouilly et al, 2018;Kinnaird and O'brien, 2012;Rich et al, 2016;Velho et al, 2016). Interestingly, size seems to have even greater influence on the effect of strict protection than threat status in the mammal community studied.…”

Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands

“…However, caution is required. Velho et al [12] found that, while many native species are present in the locally managed lands adjacent to three protected areas in Northeast India, the larger mammals were generally absent, being restricted to the protected areas. There is clearly a role for locally managed lands in protecting regional biodiversity, but they complement protected areas-they do not substitute for them.…”

Combining camera‐trap surveys and hunter interviews to determine the status of mammals in protected rainforests and rubber plantations of Menglun, Xishuangbanna, SW China

“…We identified and interviewed 37 experienced hunters (mean age: 54, range: 29-79) in the study area, with help from local colleagues who were born and raised there. We showed them photographs of mammals in the checklist and asked them to rank each species from À2 (large declines in abundance) to +2 (large increases in abundance), with a rank of zero indicating no change, following Velho et al (2016aVelho et al ( , 2016b. To avoid confusion between similar looking species in photographs, we considered all the three macaques species (Macaca spp.)…”