Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:54:45.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the patchy distribution of four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis in a tropical dry deciduous forest in Central India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2013

Koustubh Sharma ,
Raghunandan Singh Chundawat ,
Joanna Van Gruisen  and
Asad Rafi Rahmani
Koustubh Sharma*
Affiliation:
Snow Leopard Trust, 4649 Sunnyside Avenue, North Suite #325, Seattle WA98103, USA Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400001, India Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5, 4th Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore 570002, India
Raghunandan Singh Chundawat
Affiliation:
Baagh Aap Aur Van, S-17 Panchsheel Apartments, A-1 Block, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi 110017, India
Joanna Van Gruisen
Affiliation:
Baagh Aap Aur Van, S-17 Panchsheel Apartments, A-1 Block, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi 110017, India
Asad Rafi Rahmani
Affiliation:
Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400001, India
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

At the landscape level, the four-horned antelope is confined to tropical dry deciduous forests and within these, their distribution is patchy. Various factors have been proposed as determinants for their patchy distribution within landscapes, but none provided an adequate explanation. We hypothesized that availability of a constant supply of forage influenced the species distribution. We found that the four-horned antelope mainly fed on fruits and flowers, and that a total of 60% of the tree species in Panna Tiger Reserve bore fruits at different times of the year. High tree species richness in habitat patches was considered a surrogate for constant supply of forage for the four-horned antelope. Data from 547 sighting locations between 2002 and 2006 and six spatial layers were analysed using maximum entropy to produce a probability distribution model for the four-horned antelope in Panna Tiger Reserve. Our model predicted that habitat patches summing up to only 9.5% of the 543 km2 of Panna Tiger Reserve had high probability of distribution (>0.5) of four-horned antelope. Although all variables contributed to the distribution model of the four-horned antelope, explanatory power was highest for tree species richness within habitat patches. The distribution of four-horned antelope within tropical dry deciduous forests can be treated as an indicator of high tree diversity and hence habitat quality.

Keywords

distribution probabilityhabitat usemaxentPanna Tiger Reservetree species richness
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 45 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

BALDWIN, R. A. 2009. Use of maximum entropy modeling in wildlife research. Entropy 11:854–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASKARAN, N., KANNAN, V., THIYAGESAN, K. & DESAI, A. A. 2011. Behavioural ecology of four-horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis Blainville, 1986) in the tropical forests of southern India. Mammalian Biology 76:741–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BERWICK, S. H. 1974. The community of wild ruminants in the Gir forest ecosystem, India. PhD Dissertation. Yale University, USA. 226 pp.Google Scholar
BOULINIER, T., NICHOLS, J. D., SAUER, J. R., HINES, J. E. & POLLOCK, K. H. 1998. Estimating species richness: the importance of heterogeneity in species detectability. Ecology 79:1018–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRANDER, A. A. D. 1923. Wild animals in central India. Edward Arnold & Co. London. 296 pp.Google Scholar
BROOM, M. & RUXTON, G. D. 2005. You can run – or you can hide: optimal strategies for cryptic prey against pursuit predators. Behavioural Ecology 16:534–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BUCKLAND, S. T., ANDERSON, D. R., BURNHAM, K. P. & LAAKE, J. L. 1993. Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Chapman and Hall, London. 466 pp.Google Scholar
Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D. L. & Thomas, L. (Eds.) 2004. Advanced distance sampling. Oxford University Press Oxford. 416 pp.Google Scholar
BURNHAM, K. P., ANDERSON, D. R. & LAAKE, J. L. 1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monograph 72:1–202.Google Scholar
CARO, T. M., GRAHAM, C. M., STONER, C. J. & VARGAS, J. K. 2004. Adaptive significance of antipredator behaviour in artiodactyls. Animal Behaviour 67:205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAMPION, H. G. & SETH, S. K. 1968. A revised survey of the forest types of India. Government of India Publication, Delhi. 402 pp.Google Scholar
CHAO, A. 2005. Species richness estimation. Pp. 7909–7916 in Balakrishnan, N., Read, C. B. & Vidakovic, B. (eds.). Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
CHESEMORE, D. L. 1970. Notes on the mammals of southern Nepal. Journal of Mammalogy 51:162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHUNDAWAT, R. S., GOGATE, N. & JOHNSINGH, A. J. T. 1999. Tigers in Panna: preliminary results from an Indian tropical dry forest. Pp. 123–129 in Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. & Jackson, P. (eds.). Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human dominated landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
COLWELL, R. K. & CODDINGTON, J. A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosopical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 345:101–118.Google ScholarPubMed
CORBET, G. B. & HILL, J. E. 1992. The mammals of the Indomalayan region: a systematic review. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 488 pp.Google Scholar
ELITH, J., GRAHAM, C. H., ANDERSON, R. P., DUDIK, M., FERRIER, S., GUISAN, A., HIJMANS, R. J., HUETTMANN, F., LEATHWICK, J. R., LEHMANN, A., LI, J., LOHMANN, L. G., LOISELLE, B. A., MANION, G., MORITZ, C., NAKAMURA, M., NAKAZAWA, Y., OVERTON, J. M. M., PETERSON, A. T., PHILLIPS, S. J., RICHARDSON, K., SCACHETTI-PEREIRA, R., SCHAPIRE, R. E., SOBERON, J., WILLIAMS, S., WISZ, M. S. & ZIMMERMANN, N. E. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ELITH, J., PHILLIPS, S. J., HASTIE, T., DUDIK, M., CHEE, Y. E. & YATES, C. J. 2010. A statistical explanation of maxent for ecologists. Journal of Conservation Biogeography 17:43–57.Google Scholar
FIELDING, A. H. & BELL, J. F. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24:38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JARMAN, P. J. 1974. The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48:215–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JATHANNA, D., KARANTH, K. U. & JOHNSINGH, A. J. T. 2003. Estimation of large herbivore densities in the tropical forests of southern India using distance sampling. Journal of Zoology 261:285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JAYNES, E. T. 1957. Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review 106:620–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JOHNSINGH, A. J. T. 2006. Sariska on my mind. Sanctuary Asia 26 (4):34–39.Google Scholar
JOHNSON, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluations of resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KARANTH, K. U. & SUNQUIST, M. E. 1992. Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8:21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KRAUSMAN, P. R. 1999. Some basic principles of habitat use. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station Bulletin 70:85–90.Google Scholar
KRISHNA, Y. C., KRISHNASWAMY, J. & KUMAR, N. S. 2008. Habitat factors affecting site occupancy and relative abundance of four-horned antelope. Journal of Zoology 276:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KRISHNA, Y. C., CLYNE, P. J., KRISHNASWAMY, J. & KUMAR, N. S. 2009. Distributional and ecological review of the four horned antelope, Tetracerus quadricornis. Mammalia 73:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KRISHNAN, M. 1972. An ecological survey of the larger mammals of Peninsular India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 69:469–501.Google Scholar
LESLIE, M. D. & SHARMA, K. 2009. Tetracerus quadricornis (Artiodactyla: Bovidae). Mammalian Species 843:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEUTHOLD, W. 1977. African ungulates: a comparative review of their ethology and behavioral ecology. Zoophysiology and Ecology Volume 8. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 307 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NEWING, H. 2001. Bushmeat hunting and management: implications of duiker ecology and interspecific competition. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NICHOLS, J. D. & CONROY, M. J. 1996. Estimation of species richness. Pp. 226–234 in Wilson, D. E., Cole, F. R., Nichols, J. D., Rudran, R. & Foster, M. (eds.). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
PHILLIPS, S. J. & DUDIK, M. 2008. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PHILLIPS, S. J., ANDERSON, R. P. & SCHAPIRE, R. E. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190:231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRATER, S. H. 1980. The book of Indian animals. (Third edition). Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. 324 pp.Google Scholar
RAHMANI, A. R. 2001. India. Pp. 178–187 in Mallon, D. P. & Kingswood, S. C. (eds.). Part 4: North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Global survey and regional action plans. SSC Antelope Specialist Group. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland.Google Scholar
REXSTAD, E. & BURNHAM, K. P. 1991. Users guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Colorado Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 29 pp.Google Scholar
RICE, C. 1991. The status of four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 88:63–66.Google Scholar
SHARMA, K. 2006. Distribution, status, ecology and behaviour of the four-horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis). PhD Dissertation, Mumbai University, India. 207 pp.Google Scholar
SHARMA, K., RAHMANI, A. R. & CHUNDAWAT, R. S. 2009. Natural history observations of the four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 106:72–82.Google Scholar
SINGH, L. A. K. & SWAIN, D. 2003. The four-horned antelope or chousingha (Tetracerus quadricornis) in Simlipal. Zoos’ Print Journal 18:1197–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
THOMAS, L. & KARANTH, K. U. 2002. Statistical concepts: estimating absolute densities of prey species using line transect sampling. Pp. 87–109 in Karanth, K. U. & Nichols, J. D. (eds). Monitoring tigers and their prey. Natraj Publication Dehradun.Google Scholar
VALEIX, M., LOVERIDGE, A. J., CHAMAILLE-JAMMES, S., DAVIDSON, Z., MURINDAGOMO, F., FRITZ, H. & MACDONALD, D. W. 2009. Behavioral adjustments of African herbivores to predation risk by lions: spatiotemporal variations influence habitat use. Ecology 90:23–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHITE, G. C., BURNHAM, K. P., OTIS, D. L. & ANDERSON, D. R. 1978. User's manual for program CAPTURE. Utah State University Press, Logan. 37 pp.Google Scholar
WILLIAMS, B. K., NICHOLS, J. D. & CONROY, M. J. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego. 817 pp.Google Scholar