516 C. Powell and M. Iqbal
TABLE 1 Management zones in the Restorasi Ekosistem Riau of the Kampar Peninsula, Sumatra, Indonesia (Fig. 1). Management zone Description & objectives
Conservation Zone
Production Zone
Non-production Zone
Includes all areas of deep peat (.3 m) & the full range of forest cover types. The primary purpose is long-term storage of carbon, restoration of degraded areas & conservation of the fauna & flora unique to this wetland biome.
Can only legally occur on peat areas,3mdeep. In these areas past harvesting &/or intensive community use (e.g. sagu or rubber plantations) predate the ecosystem restoration licenses, & occur only on Padang Island. No native timber harvesting will be proposed or implemented during the current or future license periods, & only agroforestry community use of these areas is permitted.
Includes all lands where buildings, nurseries, bridges, trails, culverts & fire breaks are required for management & access.
% of area 96
2 2
TABLE 2 Camera-trapping effort for the flat-headed cat Prionailurus planiceps during 2015–2019 in the Restorasi Ekosistem Riau area of the Kampar Peninsula, Sumatra, Indonesia.
Year Period
Number of cameras
2015 March–November (9 months) 350 2017 March–October (8 months) 69 2018 January–May (5 months)
57
2019 April–December (9 months) 62 Total
Camera-trap nights
11,385 6,843 2,648 5,774
26,650
areas of continuous peat-swamp forest remaining in Sumatra. The remaining area comprises acacia fibre and oil palm plantations, and community agriculture (rice, maze, sago, coconut and rubber). Land conversion in this region was rapid and extensive from the mid 1990sto 2010,with Riau province having one of the highest rates of deforestation in the country during this time (Miettinen et al., 2016). After 2013, land-use change stabilized across the central peat- swamp forests through the establishment of Ecosystem Restoration Concessions, with illegal logging halted and degraded forest replanted with local native species. The peat-swamp forests of the Concessions are also being re- wetted through the damming of old drainage canals. Wilting et al. (2010) noted that only 10–20% of the predicted range of the flat-headed cat is protected. Our 11 records of the species on the Kampar Peninsula provide evidence that this species can persist in privately managed landscapes such as Ecosystem Restoration Concessions where biodiversity con- servation and forest protection are taking place. Given the paucity of data, research and conservation for
PLATE 1 A flat-headed cat Prionailurus planiceps, detected in lowland peat-swamp forest on the Kampar Peninsula, Sumatra, Indonesia (Fig. 1)at 16.21 on 4 October 2019. This was our only diurnal record of the species.
Peninsula. This model was used to provide the distribution of the flat-headed cat for the IUCN Red List (Wilting et al., 2015). Our findings provide the first published evidence of the species presence on the Kampar Peninsula, and suggest the area is an important refuge for this Endangered felid. Although the Kampar Peninsula has experienced forest
conversion, peat drainage and human-caused fires, with 49% of the 7,200 km2 area still forested it is one of the largest
many of the small felids, our records of one of the rarest are of particular importance. Further research is required to elucidate the best methods for detecting the flat-headed cat (e.g. on camera type, height above ground, and camera placement) and to investigate the species’ ecology and habitat requirements. This work is planned as a part of the Restorasi Ekosistem Riau programme on monitoring and conservation planning for priority species.
Acknowledgements We thank Dian Andi Syahputra and Dibyo Kusiyono of Riau Ekosistem Restorasi for deploying and collecting remote camera traps. Yuni Yanto Hadi provided GIS support. APRIL Group provides funding for the Riau Ekosistem Restorasi programme, including the surveys described here.
Author contributions Study design, fieldwork: MI; data analysis: CP; writing: CP.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 514–517 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000132
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164