Dhole in north-east India 875
TABLE 1 The 11 top-ranked models (based on AICc scores) and the intercept-only model [psi(.), p(.)] for the probability of site-use by dholes in Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram during December 2014–March 2015.
Model1
psi(sbr + fdp + bdy),p(eff) psi(sbr + fdp),p(eff)
psi(sbr + fdp + bdy + hum),p(eff) psi(sbr),p(eff)
psi(sbr + bdy),p(eff) psi(sbr + pig),p(eff) psi(sbr + hum),p(eff)
psi(sbr + pig + mjk),p(eff) psi(fdp + bdy),p(eff) psi(bdy),p(eff) psi(fdp),p(eff) psi(.),p(.)
AICc
862.47 863.24 863.98 867.29 867.74 868.28 868.32 870.24 870.74 873.22 873.55 874.19
ΔAICc 0
0.77 1.51 4.82 5.27 5.81 5.85 7.77 8.27
10.75 11.08 11.72
AICc weight 0.4041
0.2750 0.1899 0.0363 0.0290 0.0221 0.0217 0.0083 0.0065 0.0019 0.0016 0.0012
Model likelihood 1
0.6805 0.4700 0.0898 0.0717 0.0547 0.0537 0.0205 0.0160 0.0046 0.0039 0.0029
Parameters 6
5 7 4 5 5 5 6 5 4 4 2
Deviance 850.47
853.24 849.98 859.29 857.74 858.28 858.32 858.24 860.74 865.22 865.55 870.19
1sbr, sambar encounter frequency; fdp, encounters of forest department personnel; bdy, distance to reserve boundary; eff, trap effort; hum, human activity; pig, wild pig encounter frequency; mjk, muntjac encounter frequency.
FIG. 2 Estimates of probabilities of site-use (psi) by dholes in Dampa Tiger Reserve (Fig. 1) during December 2014–March 2015, based on camera-trap surveys and occupancy modelling.
24 hour duration) across 33 sites. Using the top-ranked occupancy model (Table 1), we estimated mean site-use probability to be psi = 0.50 ± SE 0.03 (Fig. 2) and trap-level detectability to be P = 0.87 ± SE 0.02. The top three models received similar support based on AICc scores; we interpret the covariate effects on probability of site-use from these models. Sambar encounters, forest department personnel encounters and distance to reserve boundary had positive effects on probability of site-use by dholes (Table 2, Fig. 3). The slope coefficient associated with effort as a covariate for detectabilitywas positive (mean = 0.23 ± SE 0.2).
There are records of dholes across several areas of north-east India, including in unprotected areas. Previous global assessments indicated that the species faced near or complete local extirpation to the south of the River Brahmaputra (Ginsberg & Macdonald, 1990), contrary to our findings fromDampa Tiger Reserve. Corroborating cur- rent knowledge from other landscapes, we found a positive relationship between dhole site-use and sambar presence (Acharya, 2007; Andheria et al., 2007; Punjabi et al., 2017). Across their extant distribution, the range of dholes overlaps with that of tigers and leopards Panthera pardus. Wildlife managers in this region and elsewhere subscribe to unsub- stantiated notions that dhole presence impedes colonization by tigers (P. Singh, pers. comm.), and consequently treat dholes as a problem species. On the contrary, tigers, leopards and dholes can exist provided protected areas support adequate densities of medium- to large-sized prey species (Karanth et al., 2017). Dampa Tiger Reserve is an important refuge for dholes
in north-east India. It supports large tracts of inviolate pro- tected spaces, and habitat connectivity with forested land- scapes of the Chittagong Hill Tract region to the west, Mamit Forest Division to the north and Thorangtlang Wildlife Sanctuary to the south. Our camera-trap data indicate the presence of a guild of large herbivores in the Reserve, with at least five prey species of medium and large ungulate herbivores, facilitating the long-term
TABLE 2 Slope coefficient estimates ± SE for ecological and management covariates for the top three models (i.e. those with AICc scores,2; Table 1) influencing site-use by dholes in Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram during December 2014–March 2015.
Model1
psi(sbr + fdp + bdy),p(eff) psi(sbr + fdp),p(eff)
psi(sbr + fdp + bdy + hum),p(eff) sbr
1.35 ± 0.59 1.36 ± 0.55 1.29 ± 0.58
fdp
0.86 ± 0.45 0.76 ± 0.42 1.12 ± 0.72
bdy
0.54 ± 0.34 0.51 ± 0.34
hum −0.54 ± 0.84 1sbr, sambar encounter frequency; fdp, encounters of forest department personnel; bdy, distance to reserve boundary; hum, human activity. Oryx, 2020, 54(6), 873–877 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000255
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
