Threatened mammals of India 663


TABLE 4 Results of Moran’s I test to examine whether camera-trap sites were independent. Spatial autocorrelation was insignificant for all species across the sites (all Z-scores between−1.96 and 1.96).


Species Sambar


Musk deer


Asiatic black bear Leopard


Snow leopard Season Index 0.72 Summer 0.05 Winter 0.06


Summer 0.09 Winter


0.39


Summer 0.50 Winter


Z-value P


Summer −0.07 −0.13 Winter


Winter −0.02 −0.22 Summer 0.04


1.43 0.26


0.19 0.15 0.37


0.09 −0.01 0.89


Himalayan brown bear Summer 0.25


0.46 0.39


0.89 0.15 0.79 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.18 0.36 0.64 0.69


in high altitude Trans-Himalaya was higher in summer (people 47.4 ± 12.3, livestock 84.8 ± 20.8) than winter (peo- ple 5.2 ± 1.1, no livestock). We observed a similar seasonality in alpine and subalpine habitats, with disturbance being higher in summer (people 132.4 ± 53.9, livestock 27.8 ± 18.3) than in winter (people 12.8 ± 4.2, no livestock). In temperate habitats, disturbancewas high in summer (people 115.0 ± 40.2, livestock 30.1 ± 9.3) but only slightly less in winter (people 81.1 ± 42.3, livestock recorded in only 3 of 31 locations). In subtropical habitats, mean photo-capture rates of people were similar in summer (81.5 ± 28.0) and winter (108 ± 43.4). The Pearson test showed a significant correlation be-


tween livestock and dogs (r = 0.7) and between ruggedness and slope (r = 0.9), and therefore these variables were not used together in the models. Spatial autocorrelation (Table 4) was insignificant for all species across sites (all Z-scores


were between −1.96 and 1.96). The most supported model (Tables 5 & 6) showed that sambar, common leopard and Asiatic black bear occurred in areas with high levels of human disturbance. Asiatic black bears had lower capture rates in winter (Supplementary Fig. 1), when they hibernate (Sathyakumar et al., 2013). The sambar and Asiatic black bear avoided steep slopes and rugged areas, respectively (Supplementary Fig. 1). Musk deer and brown bear were found in narrow elevation zones of subalpine habitats. In winter, musk deer capture rates declined with increasing elevation (Supplementary Fig. 1), which could be associated with snowfall at high altitudes. Snow leopards were recorded in areas with high human presence and showed a negative response to livestock (Supplementary Fig. 1). They occurred at an altitude of 3,500–4,500 m, with lower capture rates at higher elevations (Supplementary Fig. 1), and were rarely detected in the high elevation plateau habitat of the National Park. Snow leopard capture rates were higher in winter, when there was less disturbance by livestock and people (Supplementary Fig. 1). Human presence in the Bhagirathi basin was compara- tively lowin winter.Wetherefore analysed temporal overlap


between each of the six regularly detected threatened species and people only for the summer. Temporal overlap during summerwas highest between the Himalayan brown bear and livestock and domestic dogs (Fig. 2), followed by the Asiatic black bear and livestock and domestic dogs (Fig. 2). There was also considerable overlap between musk deer and do- mestic dogs (Fig. 2). The snow leopard, common leopard and sambar showed minimal temporal overlap with any anthropogenic disturbance (Fig. 2).


Discussion


Human encroachment on wildlife habitats has caused the decline of large mammals globally (Ceballos & Ehrlich, 2002). Some species persist in human-dominated land- scapes by changing their behaviour in response to human presence (Frid & Dill, 2002). The Bhagirathi basin is one such landscape, where large mammals, including some threatened species, occur across a gradient of habitat types and human disturbances. Our model did not show a significant influence of an- thropogenic pressures on the Himalayan brown bear, but the high capture rates of livestock and high temporal overlap with livestock suggest there could be a high probability of livestock depredation by the species, which could lead to retaliatory killings. Such incidents are relatively common in Himachal Pradesh (Rathore, 2008; Sathyakumar et al., 2016). Similarly, temporal overlap with domestic dogs in the summer can negatively affect musk deer, which occur in subalpine habitat. Studies in Mongolia (Young et al., 2011), Lahual Spiti (Pal, 2013) and other areas (Home et al., 2018) describe the need for the exclusion of feral dogs from critical wildlife habitats. Musk deer are also vul- nerable to poaching, but we could not quantify this and hence did not include poaching in our analysis. Camera-trap photographs of people with guns in subalpine and temper- ate forests outside the protected area (N = 5) and presence of snares that we found during monitoring of camera traps (N = 6) in subalpine habitats showed that hunting occurs in this region. Frequent removal of individuals can increase the chance of local extirpation of the remaining subpopu- lations. Snow leopard habitats, which generally consist of alpine areas, are under pressure from livestock grazing in the summer even inside the National Park. In comparison with Gangotri National Park and high


altitude areas (.1,500 m), lower, non-protected areas of Bhagirathi basin are more fragmented and more densely populated by people. Three species were found in areas of high human activity: the common leopard, sambar and Asiatic black bear. The leopard and Asiatic black bear are hunted and their body parts traded (Sathyakumar & Choudhury, 2007; Raza et al., 2012). The populations of all three species are declining as a result of habitat


Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 657–667 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001352


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