Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:08:51.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Coprophilous fungi from dung of the Greater One-Horned Rhino in Kaziranga National Park, India and its implication to paleoherbivory and paleoecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

Sadhan K. Basumatary*
Affiliation:
Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences, 53 University Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226007, India
H. Gregory McDonald
Affiliation:
Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, USA
*
*Corresponding author at: Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences, 53 University Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226007, India. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.K. Basumatary).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fungal spores, especially those of coprophilous fungi, are present in dung middens of Rhinoceros unicornis (greater one-horned rhinoceros) in both forest and grassland areas of the Kaziranga National Park, India. The presence of coprophilous fungi on rhino dung, chiefly Sporormiella, Saccobolus, Ascodesmis, Cercophora, and Sordaria, is documented for the first time. The SporormiellaAscodesmisSaccobolus assemblage is abundant and characterizes the rhino dung in forest and grassland areas. The presence of coprophilous fungi spores allows for an examination of the relationship between rhinoceros ecology and the flora and other fauna in the region. The overall dataset is useful in interpreting the present and past distribution of rhino and other associated animals based on the relative abundance of different types of coprophilous fungi spores and their relationship to paleoherbivory and paleoecology in India and adjoining areas.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © University of Washington. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2017 

INTRODUCTION

During the late Pleistocene most of the megafauna, both herbivores and carnivores, became extinct on all the major continents (Martin, Reference Martin1967, Reference Martin1984; Barnosky et al., Reference Barnosky, Koch, Feranec, Wing and Shabel2004). Previous studies on the cause of this megafaunal extinction in different parts of the globe have tended to focus on two primary causes, climatic and anthropogenic (Martin, Reference Martin1973; MacPhee, 1999; Miller et al., Reference Miller, Magee, Johnson, Fogel, Spooner, Mcculloch and Ayliffe1999; Grayson and Meltzer, Reference Grayson and Meltzer2002). The current rate of population reduction and potential extinction of herbivores and carnivores in the wild is a major global ecological issue. Currently about 60% of the large herbivorous animals are now threatened with possible extinction (Ripple et al., 2015). Southeast Asia contains the world’s highest number of threatened mammals (Schipper et al., Reference Schipper, Chanson, Chiozza, Cox, Hoffmann, Vineet and Lamoreux2008), with regional faunas experiencing ongoing range reductions and extinctions driven by human activities (Brook et al., Reference Brook, Dudley, Mahood, Polet, Williams, Duckworth, Van Ngoc and Long2014). In India, a preliminary report on the status of the mega-herbivores, including the greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis, Linnaeus, 1758; also known as the Indian rhino) describes the high probability of their local extinction (Karanth et al., 2016).

The study of the dung of individual species is an important source of information on food preferences, habitat utilized, and ecology in general. Studies of fungal remains preserved in peat and lake sediments can complement palynodata in interpreting the paleovegetation and past climate in the region (van Geel, Reference van Geel1978, 1986, 2001; van Geel et al., Reference van Geel, Bohncke and Dee1981, 1989; Gill et al., Reference Gill, Williams, Jackson, Lininger and Robinson2009; Cugny et al., Reference Cugny, Mazier and Galop2010; Feeser and O’Connell, 2010; Kramer et al., 2010; Montoya et al., 2010; Mudie et al., 2010) and in archaeological sites (van Geel et al., Reference van Geel, Buurman, Brinkkemper, Schelvis, Aptroot, van Reenen and Hakbijl2003; Zong et al., Reference Zong, Chen, Innes, Chen, Wang and Wang2007; Gauthier et al., 2010; McAndrews and Turton, Reference McAndrews and Turton2010; Rattighieri et al., Reference Rattighieri, Rinaldi, Mercuri and Bowes2013; Revelles et al., Reference Revelles, Burjachs and van Geel2016). Studies have been carried out on coprophilous fungi in surface and sedimentary soil profiles to document or infer the former presence, and subsequent decline of, herbivorous animals in a region (Davis, 1987; Burney et al., Reference Burney, Robinson and Burney2003; Barnosky et al., Reference Barnosky, Koch, Feranec, Wing and Shabel2004; Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Pigott Burney and Burney2005; Raper and Bush, Reference Raper and Bush2009). Feranec et al. (Reference Feranec, Miller, Lothrop and Graham2011) noted the need for more studies to better understand Sporormiella as a proxy and to identify whether particular taxa are only present on the dung of specific herbivores. Here we document the presence, types, and abundance of the coprophilous fungi and associated spores present in the dung of Rhinoceros unicornis in Kaziranga National Park, India. The generated dataset can serve as a critical proxy to document the former existence of rhinoceroses in a region through samples collected from the surface and sediment/soil sediments that preserve coprophilous fungi.

Rhinoceros unicornis is one of the largest living megaherbivores in the world and is now a critically endangered species (Poudyal et al., Reference Poudyal, Rothley and Knowler2009). One of the unique behaviors of rhinoceroses, including Rhinoceros unicornis is to consistently use the same location for their daily excretion and multiple individuals may deposit dung at this site or midden over several years. The historical distribution of Rhinoceros unicornis includes habitats in northern and central India, and Pakistan (Rao, Reference Rao1947; Banerjee and Chakraborty, 1973; Mathpal, Reference Mathpal1978), but Rhinoceros unicornis is absent in these regions today. The current distribution of Rhinoceros unicornis, now restricted to a few areas in the Assam region of India and Nepal, is considerably smaller than the historical distribution of the species.

STUDY SITE, FLORA, AND FAUNA

Kaziranga National Park is an ideal place for the investigation of Rhinoceros unicornis in its natural habitat and to understand the ecology of the species. The park has the highest population of Rhinoceros unicornis in the world and the population has been increasing at a positive rate from 366 individuals in 1966 to 2048 individuals in 2009 (Medhi and Saha, Reference Medhi and Saha2014). In 2015 the rhino population was 2401 (Sharma, 2016). The park lies between 26°32′ and 26°47′N, and 93°07′ E to 93°38′ E, at an elevation between 45–90 m above sea level (Fig. 1). The vegetation is mainly tropical, semi-evergreen, deciduous, savannah, and grassland (Champion and Seth, Reference Champion and Seth1968). A list of flora in the park is provided in Table 1.

Figure 1 (color online) (a) Location of the study area. (b) Land cover map of the Kaziranga National Park, India (modified after Das et al., Reference Das, Kumar, Bora, Verma, Gogoi, Gogoi and Vasu2014)

Table 1 Plant taxa present in the Kaziranga National Park, India.

The Kaziranga National Park has rich and diverse vertebrate fauna. Among the herbivores, along with the Rhinoceros unicornis (one-horned rhino; Fig. 2a), the other common mammalian herbivores are Bubalus arnee, Elephas maximus, Rusa unicolor, and Rucervus duvaucelii.

Figure 2 (a) Rhinoceros unicornis in its natural habit in Kaziranga National Park (b) A view of a field photograph during midden dung observation by Basumatary. (c) Sampling locations (red numbers) on Rhinoceros unicornis midden in forest area. (d) Sampling locations (red numbers) on Rhinoceros unicornis midden in grassland area. (For interpretations of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

CLIMATE AND SOIL

The climate of the region is controlled by the southwest and northeast monsoons:, it is hot and humid during the summer, and cold and dry during winter. The maximum temperature ranges from a minimum of 4°C during winter up to 37°C in summer. The relative humidity is very high and ranges from 75 to 86%. The annual rainfall ranges from 1800 to 2600 mm, and annual flooding is very common in the Kaziranga National Park. The soil composition varies from site to site and includes sandy loam soil in forests, sandy soil in grassland, and clayey soil in the swamp and water bodies (Das et al., Reference Das, Kumar, Bora, Verma, Gogoi, Gogoi and Vasu2014).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A total of 10 Rhinoceros unicornis dung samples (G1–G10), each consisting of ~100 g, were collected from the Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden close to the road within the grassland area in the western part of the Kaziranga National Park. Samples were collected from the center to periphery of the dung midden. Another 10 samples (F1–F10) of similar size were collected from a dung midden in the forested area close to the road in the central part of the park. The accumulations of rhino dung in the sites sampled are the result of consistent use by multiple individuals of Rhinoceros unicornis for at least several years. The middens were about 27.9–32.5 m2 in area and approximately 0.6 m in thickness. The dung samples were collected from above the ground level and below the surface of the dung to avoid contamination by the surface soil and atmospheric particles (Fig. 2b–d).

The dung samples were processed using the standard acetolysis method (Erdtman, Reference Erdtman1943). Samples were successively treated with 10% aqueous potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution to deflocculate the sediments, 40% hydrofluoric acid (HF) to dissolve silica, and acetolysis (9:1 anhydrous acetic acid to concentrated sulphuric acid, [H2SO4]). Thereafter, the samples were treated twice with glacial acetic acid (GAA), and washed 3 or 4 times with distilled water. The samples were then transferred to a 50% glycerol solution with a few drops of phenol to protect against microbial decomposition. Excluding pollen grain and fern spores, 421 to 470 fungal spores were counted from each sample to produce the fungal spore spectra. Observation of the fungal spores and microphotographs was performed using an Olympus BX-61 microscope with DP-25 digital camera under 40x magnification (Fig. 3). The identified fungal spores were categorized as coprophilous and non-coprophilous fungi. We consulted the literature as well as published papers to aid in identification of fungal spores (van Geel, 2003; Cugny et al., Reference Cugny, Mazier and Galop2010; Gross, 2011; Mungai et al., Reference Mungai, Hyde, Cai, Njogu and Chukeatirote2011; Basumatary et al., Reference Basumatary, Bera, Sangma and Marak2014; van Asperen et al., Reference van Asperen, Kirby and Hunt2016).

Figure 3 (color online) Fungal remains recovered from Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden samples in Kaziranga National Park, India. (a and b) Clumping of Ascodesmis. (c) Clumping of Sporormiella. (d) Group of Sporormiella. (e and f) Clumping of Saccolobus. (g and h) Cercophora. (i) Podospora. (j) Sordaria. (k and l) Gelasinospora. (m and n) Glomus with Hyphae. (o) Tetraploa. (p) Cookeina. (q and r) Meliola. (s) Helminthosporium. (t) Alternaria. (u) Dictyosporium. (v) Nigrospora. (w) Microthyriaceae. (x) Helicoon.

RESULTS

Fungal spore spectra

The fungal spectra in Rhinoceros unicornis dung samples from the forested and grassland area are listed in Tables 2 and 3. In the forested area, 10 dung samples (F1-F10) collected from the rhino dung midden located in the forested area of Kaziranga National Park (Fig. 1) were characterized by the predominance of coprophilous fungi (70.7%) over non-coprophilous fungi (29.3%). Among coprophilous fungi, Sporormiella (18.4%) was the most common, followed by Ascodesmis (17.4%) and Saccobolus (17.2%). Cercophora, Gelasinospora, Podospora, and Sordaria had values of 2.3% to 6.4%. The non-coprophilous fungi, chiefly the Microthyriaceae, Glomus, Tetraploa, Meliola, and Helminthosporium, were recorded within the range of 1.5% to 4.6% (Fig. 4).

Figure 4 Comparison of fungal spectra of Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden samples collected from the forest and grassland area in Kaziranga National Park, India.

Table 2 The fungal spore frequency data recovered from the rhino dung midden from the forest area. Numbers are given as percentages.

Table 3 The fungal spore frequency data recovered from the rhino dung midden from the grassland.

The 10 dung samples (G1-G10) collected in the grassland area from the Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden located in the forested area of Kaziranga National Park (Fig. 1) were also characterized by the dominance of coprophilous fungi (77.9%) over non-coprophilous fungi (22.1%). Among coprophilous fungi, the Sporormiella (20.3%), Ascodesmis (18.6%), and Saccobolus (18.3%) are the most common taxa, while Cercophora, Coniochaete, and Sordaria varied from 2.3 to 7.7%. The non-coprophilous fungi are chiefly Helminthosporium, Cookeina, Tetraploa, and Alternaria, which ranged from 1.0 to 4.9% (Fig. 4).

DISCUSSION

A total of 18 fungal spore types were identified in Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden samples collected both from grassland and forest area samples in Kaziranga National Park. The coprophilous fungi were predominant over non-coprophilous fungi in grassland and forested areas. The study reveals that Sporormiella, Saccobolus, and Ascodesmis were frequent and dominant in all of the studied samples. Baker et al. (Reference Baker, Bhagwat and Willis2013) listed spore types associated with megaherbivore dung based on empirical evidence and, while they included Sporormiella, neither Saccobolus nor Ascodesmis were included in their study. Richardson (Reference Richardson2001) documented that some taxa of cophrophilous fungi may have a preference for specific dung types and further research is needed to confirm whether these later two taxa are specific to Rhinoceros unicornis dung. However, other coprophilous fungi such as Cercophora, Sordaria, Podospora, and Gelasinospora listed by Baker et al. (Reference Baker, Bhagwat and Willis2013) were also consistently present in the assemblage from the Rhinoceros unicornis dung. It is, however, the presence of Sporormiella in the surface and lake soil sediments that currently is considered to serve as a powerful proxy for the present and past existence of herbivores and birds as a part of the paleoecological reconstruction of a region (van Geel et al., Reference van Geel, Buurman, Brinkkemper, Schelvis, Aptroot, van Reenen and Hakbijl2003; Graf and Chmura, Reference Graf and Chmura2006; Raper and Bush, Reference Raper and Bush2009; Parker and Williams, 2012; Etienne et al., Reference Etienne, Wilhelm, Sabatier, Reyss and Arnaud2013). The presence of the spores of Sporormiella greater than 2% in a pollen sample is considered a strong indication of the presence of megafauna in the region (Davis, Reference Davis1987; Raczka et al., Reference Raczka, Bush, Folcik and McMichael2016). Feranec et al. (Reference Feranec, Miller, Lothrop and Graham2011) noted that more taphonomic study is needed on how spores of coprophilous fungi enter the stratigraphic record and to identify the preservation potential of Sporormiella spores in different habitat and sediment types. They cite Nyberg and Persson (Reference Nyberg and Persson2002), who show that fungal diversity in moose (Alcesalces) dung was promoted in pine forest but suppressed in spruce forest. Our study partially addresses the issue of differential spore preservation. There does not appear to be any difference in the relative abundance of fungal spores in the dung of Rhinoceros unicornis recovered from two distinct habitats, forest and grassland. Similarly, the presence of Sporormiella in Pleistocene samples have been used as a direct indicator for the presence of extinct megaherbivores based on the study of mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) dung recovered in Bechan Cave (southern Utah) (Davis, Reference Davis1987). The clumping of coprophilous fungi spores, especially Sporormiella, Saccobolus, and Ascodesmis, in the Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden samples was very common and indicative of their local origin. In coprophilous fungi, especially Sporormiella, the spores have low dispersal capacity and produce localized concentrations rather than being dispersed across the region and generally are transported less than 100 m from the source area (Davis and Shafer, Reference Davis and Shafer2006; Raper and Bush, Reference Raper and Bush2009; Parker and Williams, 2012; Gill et al., Reference Gill, McLauchlan, Skibbe, Goring, Zirbel and Williams2013). The fungal spores are therefore strictly local in origin and become preserved close to the source where sporulation occurred (van Geel and Aptroot, Reference van Geel and Aptroot2006). In our study of Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden samples, the SporormiellaSaccobolusAscodesmis assemblage was a strong indicator of rhinoceros, as indicated by their regular presence and high abundance in all the samples.

The high amount of coprophilous fungi along with other associated fungal spores is indicative of the warm and humid condition in the region because water availability is the important factor for the germination and sporulation of Sporormiella (Austin, 1958; Ingold and Marshall, 1962; Kuthubutheen and Webster, Reference Kuthubutheen and Webster1986a, Reference Kuthubutheen and Webster1986b). The presence of Cercophora in the assemblage has also been observed in dung and is also an indicator of woodland and grassland environments (Blackford and Innes, Reference Blackford and Innes2006; Graf and Chmura, Reference Graf and Chmura2006). The SporormiellaSaccobolusAscodesmis assemblage is considered specifically characteristic for Rhinoceros unicornis dung based on their abundance in the dung midden samples. In our dataset, it is observed that, in addition to the Sporormiella, the other two taxa, Saccobolus, and Ascodesmis, were most frequently present with values >15%. The SporormiellaSaccobolusAscodesmis assemblage is characteristic of rhino dung, as indicated by their consistent high frequency (16–21%) and clustering spores in all the examined samples. In contrast, non-coprophilous fungi such as Tetraploa, Cookeina, Meliola, and Dictyosporium have a relatively low presence in the assemblage and the consistency of their presence in the dung needs more investigation. The high body temperature (~37°C) and acidic environment in the gut of herbivorous animals may be the main reason that non-coprophilous fungal spores are destroyed if they are consumed during feeding.

The continuous and comparatively high presence of Microthyriaceae (epiphyllous fungi) and Helicoon in the dung samples collected from the forest area was very significant (1–2%). The presence of such fungi in the assemblage is indicative of the dense forest vegetation under warm and humid conditions in response to the high rainfall in the region (Cookson, Reference Cookson1947; Selkirk, 1975; Reddy et al., 1982; Johnson and Sutton, 2000; Limaye et al., Reference Limaye, Kumaran, Nair and Padmalal2007; Hofmann, 2010; Medeanic and Silva, Reference Medeanic and Silva2010). The comparatively high value of Helminthosporium (3.7%) in the assemblage of grassland dung samples is of interest, as it is a common pathogen in grasses. The presence of Tetraploa and Glomus in the assemblage of both area samples suggests water-logged conditions with rich plant diversity that might be incorporated through the ingestion of plants, water, and soil, as these fungi are commonly found on leaf bases, roots, and stems of Poaceae and Cyperaceae (Ellis, 1971; Tanaka et al., Reference Tanaka, Hirayama, Yonezawa, Hatakeyama, Harada, Sano, Shirouzu and Hosoya2009).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the SporormiellaSaccobolusAscodesmis assemblage is distinctive and characteristic of Rhinoceros unicornis dung. The documentation of the coprophilous fungi present in surface soil sediments in the region can complement the data provided by the analysis of the Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden samples in Kaziranga National Park and its vicinity. The resulting fungal dataset on Rhinoceros unicornis dung can provide a baseline that can help us to document the past presence of Rhinoceros unicornis based on the study of sedimentary soil profile in Kaziranga National Park and neighboring regions. The dataset also can serve as a powerful tool to determine the past distribution and ecology of Rhinoceros unicornis in India and neighboring areas when other evidence such as bones are not available. Combined with a study of the pollen and fungal spores preserved in the dung of other herbivores animals in the region, this approach provides a way of recognizing the distribution of other animals that are found in the same habitat as Rhinoceros unicornis prior to their extirpation. Further research is needed that includes surface and sedimentary soil samples beyond the perimeter of the Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden to determine if they preserve a different or similar fungal spore assemblage than that seen in the Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden samples.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Prof. Sunil Bajpai, Director, Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences (BSIP), Lucknow, India for laboratory facilities to carry out this research. First author is very much thankful to Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi for funding (DST No: SB/EMEQ-225/2014 (SERB) the research work. First author acknowledge the forest department, Goverment of Assam for necessary help during field observation. Authors are also thankful to Mr. Sandeep K. Kohri, Project Assistant, for assistance in the samples maceration and technical help during the preparation of the manuscript.

References

REFERENCES

Baker, A.G., Bhagwat, S.A., Willis, K.J., 2013. Do dung fungal spores make a good proxy for past distributions of large herbivores. Quaternary Science Reviews 62, 2131.Google Scholar
Barnosky, A.D., Koch, P.L., Feranec, R.S., Wing, S.L., Shabel, A.B., 2004. Assessing the causes of Late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents. Science 306, 7075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basumatary, S.K., Bera, S.K., Sangma, S.N., Marak, G., 2014. Modern pollen deposition in relation to vegetation and climate of Balpakram valley, Meghalaya, northeast India: Implications for Indo- Burma palaeoecological contexts. Quaternary International 325, 3040.Google Scholar
Blackford, J.J., Innes, J.B., 2006. Linking current environments and processes to fungal spore assemblages: Surface NPM data from woodland environments. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 141, 179187.Google Scholar
Brook, S.M., Dudley, N., Mahood, S.P., Polet, G., Williams, A.C., Duckworth, J.W., Van Ngoc, T., Long, B., 2014. Lessons learned from the loss of a flagship: The extinction of the Javan rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus from Vietnam. Biological Conservation 174, 2129.Google Scholar
Burney, D.A., Robinson, G.S., Burney, L.P., 2003. Sporormiella and the late Holocene extinctions in Madagascar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100, 1080010805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Champion, H.G., Seth, S.K., 1968. A revised survey of the forest type of India. Govt. of India Press, Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Cookson, S.D., 1947. Fossil fungi from Tertiary deposits in the southern Hemisphere; part I. Proceeding of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 72, 207214.Google Scholar
Cugny, C., Mazier, F., Galop, D., 2010. Modern and fossil non-pollen palynomorphs from the Basque mountains (western Pyrenees, France): the use of coprophilous fungi to reconstruct pastoral activity. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 19, 391408.Google Scholar
Das, D.J., Kumar, V., Bora, H.R., Verma, P.K., Gogoi, P., Gogoi, R., Vasu, N.K., 2014. Land cover mapping and dynamics of Kaziranga national park, Assam, India. Indian Forester 140, 1117.Google Scholar
Davis, O.K., 1987. Spores of the dung fungus Sporormiella: Increased abundance in historic sediments and before Pleistocene megafaunal extinction. Quaternary Research 28, 290294.Google Scholar
Davis, O.K., Shafer, D.S., 2006. Sporormiella fungal spores, a palynological means of detecting herbivore density. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 237, 4050.Google Scholar
Dinerstein, E., 2003. The Return Of The Unicorns: The Natural History and Conservation of the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Erdtman, G., 1943. An Introduction to Pollen Analysis. Chronica Botanica Company, Waltham, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Etienne, D., Wilhelm, B., Sabatier, P., Reyss, J.L., Arnaud, F., 2013. Influence of sample location and livestock numbers on Sporormiella concentrations and accumulation rates in surface sediments of Lake Allos, French Alps. Journal of Paleolimnology 49, 117127.Google Scholar
Feranec, R.S., Miller, N.G., Lothrop, J.C., Graham, R.W., 2011. The Sporormiella proxy and end-Pleistocene megafaunal extinction: a perspective. Quaternary International 245, 333338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, J.L., Williams, J.W., Jackson, S.T., Lininger, K.B., Robinson, G.S., 2009. Pleistocene megafaunal collapse, novel plant communities, and enhanced fire regimes in North America. Science 326, 11001103.Google Scholar
Gill, J.L., McLauchlan, K.K., Skibbe, A.M., Goring, S., Zirbel, C.R., Williams, J.W., 2013. Linking abundances of the dung fungus Sporormiella to the density of bison: implications for assessing grazing by megaherbivores in palaeorecords. Journal of Ecology 101, 11251136.Google Scholar
Graf, M., Chmura, G.L., 2006. Development of modern analogues for natural, mowed, and grazed grasslands using pollen assemblages and coprophilous fungi. Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 141, 139149.Google Scholar
Grayson, D.K., Meltzer, D.J., 2002. Clovis hunting and large mammal extinction: a critical review of the evidence. Journal of World Prehistory 16, 313359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuthubutheen, A.J., Webster, J., 1986a. Water availability and the coprophilous fungi succession. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 86, 6376.Google Scholar
Kuthubutheen, A.J., Webster, J., 1986b. Effects of water availability on germination, growth and sporulation of coprophilous fungi. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 86, 7791.Google Scholar
Limaye, R.D., Kumaran, K.P.N., Nair, K.M., Padmalal, D., 2007. Non-pollen palynomorphs as potential palaeoenvironmental indicators in the late Quaternary sediments of the west coast of India. Current Science 92, 13701382.Google Scholar
McAndrews, J.H., Turton, C.L., 2010. Fungal spores record Iroquoian and Canadian agriculture in 2nd millennium A.D. sediment of Crawford Lake, Ontario, Canada. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 19, 495501.Google Scholar
Martin, P.S., 1967. Prehistoric Overkill. In: Martin, P.S., Wright, H.E. (Eds.), Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 75120.Google Scholar
Martin, P.S., 1984. Prehistoric Overkill: The Global Model. In: Martin, P.S., Klein, R.G. (Eds.), Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 354403.Google Scholar
Martin, P.S., 1973. The Discovery of America. Science 179, 969974.Google Scholar
Mathpal, Y., 1978. Prehistoric Rock Paintings of Bhimbetka, Central India. PhD dissertation, University of Poona, Pune, India.Google Scholar
Medeanic, S., Silva, M.B., 2010. Indicative value of non-pollen palynomorphs (NPPs) and palynofacies for palaeoreconstructions: Holocene Peat, Brazil. International Journal of Coal Geology 84, 248257.Google Scholar
Medhi, A., Saha, A.K., 2014. Land cover change and rhino habitat mapping of Kaziranga National Park, Assam. In: Singh, M., Singh, R.B., Hassan, M.I. (Eds.), Climate Change and Biodiversity: Proceedings of IGU Rohtak Conference, Vol. 1, Advances in Geographical and Environmental Sciences. Springer, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 125–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54838-6_10.Google Scholar
Miller, G.H., Magee, J.W., Johnson, B.J., Fogel, M.L., Spooner, N.A., Mcculloch, M.T., Ayliffe, L.K., 1999. Pleistocene extinction of Genyornis newtoni: human impact on Australian megafauna. Science 283, 205208.Google Scholar
Mungai, P., Hyde, K.D., Cai, L., Njogu, J., Chukeatirote, K., 2011. Coprophilous ascomycetes of northern Thailand. Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology 1, 135159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyberg, A., Persson, I.L., 2002. Habitat differences of coprophilous fungi on moose dung. Mycological Research 106, 13601366.Google Scholar
Poudyal, M.K., Rothley, K., Knowler, D., 2009. Ecological and economic analysis of poaching of the greater one‐horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Nepal. Ecological Applications 19, 16931707.Google Scholar
Raczka, M.F., Bush, M.B., Folcik, A.M., McMichael, C.H., 2016. Sporormiella as a tool for detecting the presence of large herbivores in the Neotropics. Biota Neotropica 16, e20150090, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2015-0090.Google Scholar
Rao, H.S., 1947. History of our knowledge of the Indian fauna through the ages. Journal of Bombay Natural Historical Society 54, 251280.Google Scholar
Raper, D., Bush, M., 2009. A test of Sporormiella representation as a predictor of megaherbivore presence and abundance. Quaternary Research 71, 490496.Google Scholar
Rattighieri, E., Rinaldi, R., Mercuri, A.M., Bowes, K., 2013. Land use from seasonal archaeological sites: the archaeobotanical evidence of small Roman farmhouses in Cinigiano, south-eastern Tuscany-Central Italy. Annals of Botany 3, 207215.Google Scholar
Revelles, J., Burjachs, F., van Geel, B., 2016. Pollen and non-pollen palynomorphs from the Early Neolithic settlement of La Draga (Girona, Spain). Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 225, 120.Google Scholar
Richardson, M.I., 2001. Diversity and occurrence of coprophilous fungi. Mycological Research 105, 387402.Google Scholar
Ripple, W.J., Newsome, T.M., Wolf, C., Dirzo, R., Everatt, K.T., Galetti, M., Hayward, M.W., Kerley, G.I., Levi, T., Lindsey, P.A. Macdonald, D.W. 2015. Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Science Advances 1(4), p.e1400103.Google Scholar
Robinson, G.S., Pigott Burney, L., Burney, D.A., 2005. Landscape paleoecology and megafaunal extinction in southeastern New York State. Ecological Monographs 75, 295315.Google Scholar
Schipper, J., Chanson, J.S., Chiozza, F., Cox, N.A., Hoffmann, M., Vineet, K., Lamoreux, J., et al., 2008. The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322, 225230.Google Scholar
Sharma, S., 2016. DNA indexing to curb rhino poaching in Assam and UP. The Times of India, December 7, 8.Google Scholar
Tanaka, K., Hirayama, K., Yonezawa, H., Hatakeyama, S., Harada, Y., Sano, T., Shirouzu, T., Hosoya, T., 2009. Molecular taxonomy of bambusicolous fungi: Tetraplosphaeriaceae, a new pleosporalean family with Tetraploalike anamorphs. Studies in Mycology 64, 175209.Google Scholar
van Asperen, E.N., Kirby, J.R., Hunt, C.O., 2016. The effect of preparation methods on dung fungal spores: Implications for recognition of megafaunal populations. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 229, 18.Google Scholar
van Geel, B., 1978. A palaeoecological study of Holocene peat bog sections in Germany and the Netherlands, based on the analysis of pollen, spores and macro-and microscopic remains of fungi, algae, cormophytes and animals. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 25, 1120.Google Scholar
van Geel, B., 1986. Application of fungal and algal remains and microfossils in palynological analyses. In Berglund, B.E. (ed.), Handbook of Holocene Palaeoecology and Palaeohydrology. Wiley, chichester. pp. 497–505.Google Scholar
van Geel, B., 2001. Non-pollen palynomorphs. In Smol, J.P., Birks, H.J.P., Last W.M., editors, Tracking environmental change using lake sediments. Vol. 3, Terrestrial, algal and siliceous indicators. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. pp. 99–119.Google Scholar
van Geel, B., Aptroot, A., 2006. Fossil ascomycetes in Quaternary deposits. Nova Hedwig 82, 313329.Google Scholar
van Geel, B., Bohncke, S., Dee, H., 1981. A palaeoecological study of an upper late glacial and Holocene sequence from “De Borchert”, The Netherlands. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 31, 367448.Google Scholar
van Geel, B., Buurman, J., Brinkkemper, O., Schelvis, J., Aptroot, A., van Reenen, G., Hakbijl, T., 2003. Environmental reconstruction of a Roman Period settlement site in Uitgeest (The Netherlands), with special reference to coprophilous fungi. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 873883.Google Scholar
Zong, Y., Chen, Z., Innes, J.B., Chen, C., Wang, Z., Wang, H., 2007. Fire and flood management of coastal swamp enabled first rice paddy cultivation in east China. Nature 449, 459462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1 (color online) (a) Location of the study area. (b) Land cover map of the Kaziranga National Park, India (modified after Das et al., 2014)

Figure 1

Table 1 Plant taxa present in the Kaziranga National Park, India.

Figure 2

Figure 2 (a) Rhinoceros unicornis in its natural habit in Kaziranga National Park (b) A view of a field photograph during midden dung observation by Basumatary. (c) Sampling locations (red numbers) on Rhinoceros unicornis midden in forest area. (d) Sampling locations (red numbers) on Rhinoceros unicornis midden in grassland area. (For interpretations of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Figure 3

Figure 3 (color online) Fungal remains recovered from Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden samples in Kaziranga National Park, India. (a and b) Clumping of Ascodesmis. (c) Clumping of Sporormiella. (d) Group of Sporormiella. (e and f) Clumping of Saccolobus. (g and h) Cercophora. (i) Podospora. (j) Sordaria. (k and l) Gelasinospora. (m and n) Glomus with Hyphae. (o) Tetraploa. (p) Cookeina. (q and r) Meliola. (s) Helminthosporium. (t) Alternaria. (u) Dictyosporium. (v) Nigrospora. (w) Microthyriaceae. (x) Helicoon.

Figure 4

Figure 4 Comparison of fungal spectra of Rhinoceros unicornis dung midden samples collected from the forest and grassland area in Kaziranga National Park, India.

Figure 5

Table 2 The fungal spore frequency data recovered from the rhino dung midden from the forest area. Numbers are given as percentages.

Figure 6

Table 3 The fungal spore frequency data recovered from the rhino dung midden from the grassland.