Comparative Densities of Tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) between Tourism and Non Tourism Zone of Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh- A brief report

Transcription

1 Comparative Densities of Tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) between Tourism and Non Tourism Zone of Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh- A brief report Submitted by Principal investigators Prof. (Dr.) K. Sankar Researcher Aniruddha Majumder Prof. Qamar Qureshi August, 2012

2 INTRODUCTION The Pench Tiger Reserve (758 sq. km), Madhya Pradesh includes the Pench National Park (292 sq. km) and Pench Wildlife Sanctuary (118 sq. km) along with buffer area of Seoni and Chhindwara districts. The Pench National Park has been named after a river, the Pench that meanders along the centre of the Park, bisecting it in almost two equal parts (Dungariyal 2008). Tourism is carried out in Karmajhiri and Gumtara ranges of Indira Priyadarshini Pench National Park. The tourism zone is shown in the map (Figure 1). The total tourism area consists of 44 compartments having an area of 150 sq. km, which is almost 37% of the total Protected Area (Dungariyal 2008). In this present study, we aimed to compare tiger densities between tourism and non tourism zone of this reserve. A number of methods (eg. Pugmark tracing, scat DNA based species identification) have been developed to determine the abundance of tiger, which is usually a challenging process (Karanth 1995). Since individual tiger are readily identifiable using the stripes on the body (Karanth 1995), population estimation under mark-recapture frame work (Otis et al. 1978; Pollock et al. 1990) using camera trap technique (Karanth 1995) was used for present study. STUDY AREA AND DURATION Present study was carried out between January 2011 and April 2011 in Pench National Park and Pench Wildlife Sanctuary of Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh (Figure 1). The intensive study covers an area of 410 sq. km. METHODS A pair of cameras was deployed in a systematic 2 km X 2 km grid during the study period (Figure 1) and the minimum distance between two camera locations varied between 1.5 and 2 km (Jhala et al. 2010). The 410 sq. km was covered in 2011 for camera trapping. Camera trapping

3 devices were placed one opposite to another to photograph simultaneously both flanks of an animal. To eliminate mutual flash interference, the two cameras were not positioned directly facing each other. To minimize bias in the identification process, all tiger photographs were examined independently. Each photograph of an individual represented a capture occasion. Identification was done based on examination of the position and shape of stripes on the flanks for tiger (Karanth 1995). Data analysis Population estimation Following assumptions were considered during designing the study and data analysis under mark recapture frame work. 1) Population is geographically closed. 2) Animals do not lose their marks. 3) All the marks are recorded correctly at each trapping occasion. 4) The assumption of equal catchability of animals. Individual capture histories for the identified tiger were constructed using a standard X-matrix format (Otis et al. 1978; Karanth 1995), in which 1 indicates capture of a particular animal during a particular sampling occasion, while 0 indicates that the animal was not captured during particular sampling occasion. Software used for population estimation Program CAPTURE inbuilt in program MARK ver. 6 was used (Cooch and White 1995) for the population estimation. Based on the appropriate model with highest values (close to 1) population was estimated.

4 Figure 1 Grid wise (2km X 2 km) camera trap locations in tourism and non tourism zone of Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh (January 2011 to April 2011)

5 Density estimation Population density is the single parameter of greatest intrinsic interest to biologists studying population dynamics (Krebs 1985). Unbiased estimation of population density is a major and unsolved problem in animal trapping studies. In mark recapture studies, especially for large mammals, the trapping is done in a small area and a buffer strip is added to it to account for the space use by animal trapped at the periphery. The total area calculated thus, is known as the effective area sampled and is denoted by A (W) where W is the calculated strip width or buffer area. The strip width is calculated, most often through the half MMDM (Mean Maximum Distance Moved) between recaptures. When traps are randomly placed at high use locations to maximize capture, not in a specific designed frame, the effective trapping area is very likely to be an artifact of the placing of traps. Finally density will be calibrated based on this distance and when densities are averaged among sampling units, mean density is usually weighted by the proportion of total area in which individuals are living which may be just partly or fractionally sampled, leading to an overestimate and often high CVs (Sharma et al. 2010). Program DENSITY ver. 4.4 was used for density estimation of tiger under both MMDM and ½ MMDM methods (Jhala et al. 2010). For computing densities of tiger, model fit estimators as Half normal cosine and Uniform cosine were tested with various combination of models under M (h) Jacknife, M (O) null, M (b), Mbh, Mt and M th. The density was estimated from best fitted model based on the lowest AIC value. Comparative densities between tourism and non tourism zone As the entire camera trap grids are divided into tourism and non tourism block (Figure 1), the population and densities were estimated separately and T-test (Two samples from mean and standard error) was done using program NCSS to differentiate densities between tourism and non

6 tourism zone (Zar 1984). RESULTS Population and density estimation During the study period, effort of 96 trap days from 34 traps stations 3168 trap nights yielded 65 photographs of 11 individual tiger in tourism zone, 42 traps stations 4128 trap nights yielded 37 photographs of 13 individual tigers in non tourism zone (Table 1). Though camera trap covers two non tourism blocks (Figure 1), but pooled population and density was represented for the present study (Table 1). The estimated population under best fitted model Mh- Jackknife for tourism zone was 11.1±0.4 and non tourism zone was 19±4.3. The estimated density under ½ MMDM model was 4.8±0.5/ 100 sq. km in tourism zone and 3.8±1.7/ 100 sq. km (pooled density± standard error) in non tourism zone (Table 1). Table 1. Population and density (100 km ²) estimation of tiger in tourism, non-tourism and overall intensive study area (January to April 2011) Parameters Tourism zone Non tourism zone Overall ISA No of Photographs No of Individual Trapping Occasions Total Trap stations Trap nights Population ±SE 11.1±0.4 19± ±3.9 p-hat ETA MMDM (sq. km) MMDM Density ±SE / 100 sq. km 3.01± ± ±0.4 ETA½ MMDM sq. km ½ MMDM Density ±SE/ 100 sq. km 4.8± ± ±0.2 MMDM (meter) ± ± ± Best fitted model Mh + Half normal Mh + Hazard rate Mh + Half normal ML-DENS±SE/ 100 sq. km 4± ± ±0.7 ± =Standard Error, p-hat= capture probabilities, MMDM= Mean Maximum Distance Moved

7 Comparative densities between tourism and non tourism zone No significant difference was observed while comparing both MMDM densities (unequal variance, df= 18.04, P= 0.6) and ½ MMDM densities (unequal variance, df= 14.04, P= 0.6) of tiger between tourism and non tourism zone. DISCUSSION No significant difference between tiger densities in tourism and non tourism was observed during the study period. Additional information from ongoing Ecology of tiger (Panthera tigris) research project 1) The population demography of tiger was estimated between 2006 and 2012 under Pollock s Robust Design (Pollock 1982) using camera trap and total area cover 200 sq. km. More than 75 % area for this study falls under tourism zone. The estimated overall (n=41 individuals) survival rate (±Standard Error) of tiger was 0.65 (±0.06) followed by 0.56 (±0.11) of total male tiger (n=13), 0.72 (±0.07) of total female tiger (n=28). The estimated mean growth rate of overall tiger population was 1.11 (±0.19) (i.e. 11% over the period), 1.03 (±0.22) of total male tiger (i.e.3% over the period) and 1.22 (±0.20) of total female tiger (i.e. 22% over the period). 2) A radio-collared breeding female used 19.3 % of tourism zone to raise 4 cubs from her 2 nd litter (n=313 locations) and 18.7% of tourism zone to raise her 5 cubs from 3 rd litter (n=291 locations) between October 2008 and December In total 12 breeding dens were used by radio-collared breeding female while raising her cubs.

8 REFERENCES Cooch, E. and White, G Program MARK. Analysis of Data from Marked Individuals. A Gentle Introduction 2 nd Edition mark/docs/book/ Dungariyal, N.S Management Plan of Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, pp-233. Jhala, Y.V., Qureshi, Q, Gopal, R., and Sinha, P.R Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt., of India, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun. TR 08/001 pp-151. Karanth, K.U., Estimating tiger (Panther tigris) populations from cameras trap data using capture recapture models.biological Conservation 71, Krebs, C.J Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Third Edition. Harper and Row, New York. 800 pp. Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C. and Anderson, D. R Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monograph 62: Pollock, K. H A capture-recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Brownie, C., and Hines, J. E Statistical Inference for Capture-Recapture Experiments, Wildlife Society Monographs (No. 107). Sharma, R. K., Jhala, Y.V., Qureshi, Q. Vattakaven, J., Gopal, R. and Nayak, K Evaluating capture recapture population and density estimation of tigers in a population with known parameters. Animal Conservation 13:

9 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Camera Trap Locations in Tourism Zone, Pench Tiger Reserve, M. P. Camera Trap Locations at Tourism Zone Sl No CT ID Longitude Latitude

10 Appendix 2. Camera Trap Locations in Non Tourism Zone, Pench Tiger Reserve, M.P. Non tourism Zone Block A SL No CT ID Longitude Latitude Non tourism Zone Block B SL No CT ID Long Lat

11 Appendix 3. Photo-captured tigers in tourism and non tourism zone of Pench Tiger Reserve Tiger Id- 1 (Non Tourism Zone)

12 Tiger Id- 2 (Non tourism Zone)

13 Tiger Id- 3 (Non Tourism Zone)

14 Tiger Id 4 (Non Tourism Zone)

15 Tiger Id- 5 (Non Tourism Zone)

16 Tiger Id- 6 (Non Tourism Zone)

17 Tiger Id- 7 (Non Tourism Zone)

18 Tiger Id 8 (Non Tourism Zone)

19 Tiger Id- 9 (Non Tourism Zone)

20 Tiger id- 10 (Non Tourism Zone)

21 Tiger Id- 11 (Tourism Zone)

22 Tiger Id- 12 (Tourism Zone)

23 Tiger Id- 13 (Tourism Zone)

24 Tiger Id- 14 (Tourism Zone)

25 Tiger Id- 15 (Tourism Zone)

26 Tiger Id 16 (Tourism Zone)

27 Tiger Id- 17 (Non Tourism Zone)

28 Tiger Id-19 (Both Tourism and Non Tourism Zone)

29 Tiger Id 20 (Tourism Zone)

30 Tiger Id- 21 (Tourism Zone)

31 Tiger Id 22 (Tourism Zone)

32 Tiger Id- 23 (Non Tourism Zone)

33 Tiger Id- 24 (Tourism Zone)