Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:07:51.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating seasonal abundance and habitat use of small carnivores in the Western Ghats using an occupancy approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

Riddhika Kalle ,
Tharmalingam Ramesh ,
Qamar Qureshi  and
Kalyanasundaram Sankar
Riddhika Kalle*
Affiliation:
Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehra Dun-248 001, Uttarakhand, India
Tharmalingam Ramesh
Affiliation:
Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehra Dun-248 001, Uttarakhand, India
Qamar Qureshi
Affiliation:
Department of Landscape Ecology, Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehra Dun-248 001, Uttarakhand, India
Kalyanasundaram Sankar
Affiliation:
Department of Habitat Ecology, Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehra Dun-248 001, Uttarakhand, India
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Rigorous population studies on many small carnivores are lacking in India. Presence-absence models with habitat covariates were applied to estimate seasonal occupancy and abundance of nine small-carnivore species from camera-trap data in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve (2010 and 2011). We deployed 25 camera-trap stations in the deciduous forest, 21 in the semi-evergreen forest and 26 in the dry thorn forest. In total, 7380 trap-nights yielded 448 photographs of small carnivores: jungle cat (n = 72), leopard cat (n = 6), rusty-spotted cat (n = 11), small Indian civet (n = 89), common palm civet (n = 37), brown palm civet (n = 20), stripe-necked mongoose (n = 66), ruddy mongoose (n = 96) and Indian grey mongoose (n = 51). In the dry season, rusty-spotted cat was the rarest carnivore with an average abundance (λmean) of 0.24 ± 0.26, while ruddy mongoose was the most abundant (λmean = 0.90 ± 0.40). In the wet season, leopard cat was the rarest species (λmean = 0.048 ± 0.041) while grey mongoose was the most abundant (λmean = 0.68 ± 0.35). Abundance of jungle cat, common palm civet, ruddy mongoose and grey mongoose increased in the dry thorn forest whereas in the dry season abundance of small Indian civet decreased in this forest type. Abundance of leopard cat and small Indian civet was not influenced by habitat in the wet season. Deciduous forest was positively associated with abundance of rusty-spotted cat. Deciduous and semi-evergreen forests had a positive effect on abundance of stripe-necked mongoose while the latter was a positive predictor of abundance and occupancy for brown palm civet. Improved modelling approaches can account for the spatio-temporal variation in habitat use of small carnivores occupying specialized niches in heterogeneous tropical forests of southern India.

Keywords

camera trapscivetscryptic mammalsmongoosesMudumalai Tiger Reservepresence/absence datasmall catstropical forests
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , September 2014 , pp. 469 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

BURNHAM, K. P. & ANDERSON, D. R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. (Second edition). Springer–Verlag, New York. 488 pp.Google Scholar
BURTON, A. C., SAM, M. K., BALANGTAA, C. & BRASHARES, J. S. 2012. Hierarchical multi-species modeling of carnivore responses to hunting, habitat and prey in a West African Protected Area. PLOS ONE 7:e38007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAMPION, H. G. & SETH, S. K. 1968. A revised survey of the forest types of India. Government of India Press, New Delhi. 404 pp.Google Scholar
FORESMAN, K. R. & PEARSON, D. E. 1998. Comparison of proposed survey procedures for detection of forest carnivores. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1217–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GERBER, B. D., KARPANTY, S. M. & KELLY, M. J. 2012. Evaluating the potential biases in carnivore capture–recapture studies associated with the use of lure and varying density estimation techniques using photographic-sampling data of the Malagasy civet. Population Ecology 54:43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GU, W. & SWIHART, R. K. 2004. Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife–habitat models. Biological Conservation 116:195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GUPTA, S. 2011. Ecology of medium and small sized carnivores in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Ph.D. thesis. Saurashtra University, Biosciences Department, India.Google Scholar
HANSEN, C. P., RENKEN, R. B. & MILLSPAUGH, J. J. 2012. Amphibian occupancy in flood-created and existing wetlands of the lower Missouri river alluvial valley. River Research and Applications 28:1488–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JENNINGS, A. P., SEYMOUR, A. S & DUNSTONE, N. 2005. Ranging behaviour, spatial organization and activity of the Malay civet (Viverra tangalunga) on Buton Island, Sulawesi. Journal of Zoology 268:63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JOSHI, A. R., SMITH, J. L. D. & CUTHBERT, F. J. 1995. Influence of food distribution and predation pressure on spacing behavior in palm civets. Journal of Mammalogy 76:1205–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KALLE, R., RAMESH, T., SANKAR, K. & QURESHI, Q. 2012. Diet of mongoose in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, southern India. Journal of Scientific Transactions in Environment and Technovation 6:44–51.Google Scholar
KALLE, R., RAMESH, T., QURESHI, Q. & SANKAR, K. 2013a. The occurrence of small felids in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu, India. Cat News 58:32–35.Google Scholar
KALLE, R., RAMESH, T., SANKAR, K. & QURESHI, Q. 2013b. Observations of sympatric small carnivores in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Western Ghats, India. Small Carnivore Conservation 49:53–59.Google Scholar
KUMARA, H. N. & SINGH, M. 2007. Small carnivores of Karnataka: distribution and sight records. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 104:155–162.Google Scholar
LANTSCHNER, M. V., RUSCH, V. & HAYES, J. P. 2012. Habitat use by carnivores at different spatial scales in a plantation forest landscape in Patagonia, Argentina. Forest Ecology and Management 269:271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MACKENZIE, D. I., NICHOLS, J. D., LACHMAN, G. B., DROEGE, S., ROYLE, J. A. & LANGTIMM, C. A. 2002. Estimating site occupancy when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MACKENZIE, D. I., NICHOLS, J. D., ROYLE, J. A., POLLOCK, K. P., BAILEY, L. L. & HINES, J. E. 2006. Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, San Diego. 324 pp.Google Scholar
MORRIS, D. W. 1988. Habitat dependent population regulation and community structure. Evolutionary Ecology 2:253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MORRIS, D. W. 1992. Scales and cost of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes. Evolutionary Ecology 6:412–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MUDAPPA, D. 2001. Ecology of the brown palm civet Paradoxurus jerdoni in the tropical rainforests of the Western Ghats, India. Ph.D. thesis. Division of Conservation Biology, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore.Google Scholar
MUDAPPA, D., NOON, B. R., KUMAR, A. & CHELLAM, R. 2007. Responses of small carnivores to rainforest fragmentation in the southern Western Ghats, India. Small Carnivore Conservation 36:18–26.Google Scholar
MUDAPPA, D., KUMAR, A. & CHELLAM, R. 2010. Diet and fruit choice of the brown palm civet Paradoxurus jerdoni, a viverrid endemic to the Western Ghats rainforest, India. Tropical Conservation Science 3:282–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NAG, K. 2008. Assessing animal abundance from photographic capture data using an occupancy approach. Post-Graduate Programme in Wildlife Biology & Conservation, Centre for Wildlife Studies. M.Sc. thesis, The Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal University, India.Google Scholar
NIXON, A. M. A., RAO, S., KARTHIK, K., ASHRAF, N. V. K. & MENON, V. 2010. Civet chronicles – search for the Malabar civet (Viverra civettina) in Kerala and Karnataka. Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi. 73 pp.Google Scholar
OTIS, D. L., BURNHAM, K. P., WHITE, G. C. & ANDERSON, D. R. 1978. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monograph 62:1–135.Google Scholar
PRAKASH, N., MUDAPPA, D., RAMAN, T. R. S. & KUMAR, A. 2012. Conservation of the Asian small-clawed otter (Aonyx cinereus) in human-modified landscapes, Western Ghats, India. Tropical Conservation Science 5:67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROYLE, J. A. & NICHOLS, J. D. 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84:777–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SARMENTO, P. B., CRUZ, J. P., EIRA, C. I. & FONSECA, C. 2010. Habitat selection and abundance of common genets Genetta genetta using camera capture-mark-recapture data. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56:59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHITE, G. C., ANDERSON, D. R., BURNHAM, K. P. & OTIS, D. L. 1982. Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos. 235 pp.Google Scholar
YOGANAND, T. R. K. & KUMAR, A. 1995. The distributions of small carnivores in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, southern India: a preliminary report. Small Carnivore Conservation 13:1–2.Google Scholar