Dependence of the leopard Panthera pardus fusca in Jaipur, India, on domestic animals


SWAP N I L KUMBHOJKAR,REUVE N YOS EF ,J AK U B Z. KOS ICK I PAT R Y C J A K. KWI A T K OWS K A and P IO TR TRYJ ANOWS K I


Abstract The ecology and predator–prey dynamics of large felids in the tropics have largely been studied in natural sys- tems where wild ungulates constitute the majority of the prey base. However, in tropical countries where commu- nities are primarily agrarian, the high density of domestic animals in human-dominated landscapes can be a potential prey source for large carnivores. We demonstrate almost complete dependence of the Vulnerable leopard Panthera pardus fusca in the Jhalana Reserve Forest in Jaipur, north- west India on domestic animals as prey. We analysed 132 leopard scats collected during the dry season of November 2017–April 2018. Domestic animals comprised the majority of the leopards’ prey (89.5% frequency of occurrence): dogs Canis lupus familiaris (44%), cats Felis catus (13%), goats Capra aegagrus hircus (16%) and cattle Bos taurus (15%). Wild species, which occurred in the leopards’ diet at a relatively low frequency, were rodents, the hare Lepus nigricollis, small Indian civet Viverricula indica, rhesus macaque Macaca mulatta, northern plains grey langur Semnopithecus entellus and mongoose Herpestes edwardsii. Diet is also a function of availability of potential prey, but no data are available on the density of the leopard’s wild prey species in Jhalana Reserve Forest. Nevertheless, our results suggest that abundance of domestic prey around Jhalana Reserve Forest sustains the c. 25 known leopards. We con- clude that these leopards, by preying on feral dogs in an urban environment, could be considered as suppliers of a service to the human population amongstwhomthey thrive, although this potentially exposes the leopards to the canine distemper virus.


Keywords Diet, environmental service, human-dominated landscape, India, Jhalana, leopard, Panthera pardus fusca


Introduction


and for planning the conservation of an apex predator (Miquelle et al., 1996). The density of carnivores is related to habitat quality, in particular to the availability of prey (Fuller & Sievert, 2001; Carbone & Gittleman, 2002; Andheria et al., 2007; Karanth&Nichols, 2010). To enhance the cost–benefit ratio of energetic intake, large carnivores may visit areas close to, or even inside, human settlements (Gehrt et al., 2010; Yirga et al., 2012; Athreya et al., 2013). Fear of carnivores, especially in the context of livestock dep- redation, can negatively affect people’s well-being (Inskip& Zimmermann, 2009). It has been shown that the abundance and availability of wild and domestic prey is the predomin- ant factor that determines the potential carrying capacity of human-dominated landscapes for large carnivores (Boitani & Powell, 2012). In human-dominated landscapes in Brazil, Nepal and Kenya (Schaller, 1983; Seidensticker et al., 1990; Mizutani, 1999) the biomass of potential domestic prey of carnivores was higher than that of wild prey species. Discarded food waste and pet food may also contribute to the food resources of carnivores (Gehrt et al., 2010). This re- duces carnivores’ fear of humans and, in consequence, the density of carnivores in urban or semi-urban areas can be higher than in the wild (Butler et al., 2014). In India, the intrusion of large predators into urban


K


SWAPNIL KUMBHOJKAR Jhalana Wildlife Research Foundation, Pune, India REUVEN YOSEF (Corresponding author,


orcid.org/0000-0003-4331-9866) Ben


Gurion University of the Negev-Eilat Campus, P. O. Box 272, 88106 Eilat, Israel E-mail ryosef60@gmail.com


JAKUB Z. KOSICKI Department of Avian Biology & Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland


PATRYCJA K. KWIATKOWSKA Institute of Zoology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland


PIOTR TRYJANOWSKI Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic


Received 7 June 2019. Revision requested 15 July 2019. Accepted 3 September 2019. First published online 2 October 2020.


areas is well documented. Wolves Canis lupus (Jhala & Giles, 1991), Asiatic lions Panthera leo persica (Meena et al., 2011), striped hyaenas Hyaena hyaena (Singh et al., 2010) and tigers Panthera tigris (Karanth & Gopal, 2005) are known to attack livestock and persist in human- dominated landscapes. The leopard Panthera pardus fusca also lives successfully in the proximity of people (Athreya et al., 2004). Its broad diet includes amphibians, arthropods and carrion, reducing dependence on water sources, which is obtained from the prey (Daniel, 2009; Kshettry et al., 2018). Compared to larger felids, the small body size of the leopard reduces the territory required to sustain a popu- lation and allows it to survive and thrive in proximity to people (Daniel, 2009; Kshettry et al., 2018). To examine resource utilization by leopards in a rural,


semi-urban human-dominated landscape, we analysed the diet of leopards of the Jhalana Reserve Forest. Because the Reserve is in close proximity to and surrounded by human habitations, leopards have little fear of people and


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 692–698 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001145


nowledge of prey selection and diet is important for understanding the life history strategies of carnivores


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