426 G. Khanal et al.


local community leaders and herders, and data available at the Api Nampa Conservation Area office, suggest that a minimum of 10,000 livestock graze on the rangelands in summer, c. 10× higher than our estimate of 1,000 bharal.


Limitations and further studies


FIG. 2 Total number of bharal Pseudois nayaur observed across four bands of altitude in Api Nampa Conservation Area (Fig. 1) in autumn.


Wild prey bharal density estimates


Our density estimates and recruitment rate of bharal were lower than in other protected areas in Nepal (Table 5). Schaller (1977) attributed the low recruitment rate in Shey Phoksundo National Park, Nepal, to excessive livestock grazing, but high predation on young animals could also have been a contributing factor. In Spiti Valley, Himachal state, India, high grazing pressure by livestock led to a low bharal reproductive rate (Mishra et al., 2004). However, be- cause of fine-scale habitat partitioning, forage competition between livestock and bharal may not be as direct as com- monly assumed (Shrestha &Wegge, 2008). We did not col- lect information on habitat relationships or on forage availability but based on our general observations and infor- mation on livestock numbers, we suggest that high grazing pressure by seasonally grazing livestock may be a contribut- ing factor to the low recruitment of bharal. Accounts from


The information on snow leopard distribution and factors influencing the sign encounter rate reported here are based on limited survey data, and sign encounter rate is a less accurate metric for assessing snow leopard habitat use than movement data from radio telemetry. Our analyses of encounter rates may reflect where we were more likely to detect signs, rather than habitat use per se. Detection of snow leopard signs may be influenced by survey season, search effort, observer experience and fatigue, weather (snow fall), substrate (e.g. snow cover), sign type and lon- gevity, terrain type, site selection (e.g. ridgeline vs river bank trails) and human and livestock use of the area (McCarthy et al., 2008). Our estimate that 6–9 snow leopards could be supported


in Api Nampa Conservation Area is based on the predator– prey ratio (Oli, 1994), which does not take into account the contribution of livestock and alternative prey such as the marmot (Mallon et al., 2016). Livestock can contribute up to 42% of annual snow leopard diet (Wegge et al., 2012), and smaller mammals such as the marmot can contribute as much as 45% of the summer food of snow leopards (23% of annual requirements; Schaller et al., 1988). Although the total prey biomass in the Conservation Area could therefore potentially support more than 6–9 snow leopards, we observed a relatively low abundance of mar- mots, and local residents indicated there is little livestock depredation by snow leopards. Use of the predator–prey ratio to estimate snow leopard numbers also assumes there is no competition from other predators for the same prey biomass. Because we rarely encountered wolf signs and local herders reported that wolves were seldom ob- served, it is unlikely that other predators consume a sub- stantial proportion of the bharal biomass.


TABLE 5 Bharal density and population recruitment estimates for Nepal. Location


Density (per km2)


Manang District, Annapurna Conservation Area 6.6–10.2 Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Shey Phoksundo National Park Phu Valley, Manang Yak Kharka, Manang


4.2 2.1 9.4


Manaslu Conservation Area


Annapurna & Manaslu Conservation Areas Annapurna Conservation Area


2.09 3.8


5.97 ± SE 0.10 2.3


60


Recruitment/young per 100 females


40 50 56


Year Source


1990 Oli (1994) 2006 Thapa (2006) 2006 Thapa (2006)


2008 Shrestha & Wegge (2008) 2009 Aryal et al. (2014) 2011 Devkota et al. (2017) 2012 Chetri et al. (2017) 2013 WWF Nepal (2013)


Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 421–428 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000145


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