264 N. M. Shwe et al.
information is currently available on the status of the Region’s charismatic predator species. Our aim here is to provide quantitative information on the distribution and conservation status of large carnivores in the Reserved Forest. We hypothesized that in the Reserved Forest and adjacent areas the distributions of large carnivores and their main prey are influenced by habitat degradation following land- scape conversion and human disturbance. To test this, we analysed data from extensive camera trapping undertak- en by the Fauna & Flora International (FFI) Tanintharyi Conservation Programme and Wahplaw Wildlife Watch, a local partner, during 2016–2018.
Study area
The study was conducted within and outside Lenya Reserved Forest (Fig. 1), a proposed protected area, which is mostly covered by tropical evergreen forest, with smaller areas of secondary forest resulting from state-sponsored se- lective logging since 2007. The area is characterized by a dry season (November–March), with mean rainfall ,100 mm/ month and a wet season (April–October), with mean rain- fall of 750 mm/month (Baskett, 2015). Many old logging roads remain, facilitating further degradation from anthro- pogenic pressures such as hunting, agricultural expansion, mining and road construction (Woods, 2015; FFI, 2016; Connette et al., 2017). The area has long been inaccessible to researchers because of the insecure political situation be- tween the Myanmar and Karen armies. This is the first camera-trap survey within and outside Lenya Reserved Forest in the southern Tanintharyi Region. The area outside Lenya Reserved Forest comprises remaining forest patches near oil palm plantations, including Yuzuna II and the Myanmar Auto Cooperation. Both plantations were li- censed in the 1990s but further clearance is on hold while the regional government undertakes a review.
Methods
Camera-trap survey Our camera-trap survey was designed to study the distri- bution and status of tigers and their prey in primary and degraded forests, forest near plantations and private farm- land near forest. Data were collected using Bushnell 12 MP Trophy digital infrared camera traps (Bushnell, Overland Park, USA) during May 2016–March 2018. The cameras were placed at 132 locations (107 within and 25 outside the Lenya Reserve Forest, at 19–672 m altitude); two cameras were deployed in each location, facing each other, to facilitate identification of individual tigers and leopards (Miththapala et al., 1989). Camera traps were spaced at a mean distance of 2,750 m(range 1,500–4,000 m).We did not place cameras on
the border with Thailand because of the presence of land- mines there, or in northern and central areas of the pro- posed protected area, but otherwise all areas with forest were surveyed. Over the 23-month period, camera traps were placed across an area of c. 1,000 km2 (Fig. 1). Camera traps were deployed in locations where we considered there was a high likelihood of detecting the target species (e.g. areas with presence of tiger or prey signs, well-used trails, or near water), and along trails and on ridges, to in- crease the probability of photographing wildlife (Forman & Alexander, 1998). Cameras were secured c. 60 cmabove the ground and po-
sitioned to photograph the flanks of any passing animal. One of each pair of cameras was set in hybridmode (picture and video), and the other was set to picture mode only, to prolong battery life and reduce memory card usage. Cameras were programmed to take three photographs when triggered, with a delay of 30 s between photograph events. Following cumulative species detection curves from preliminary surveys (in 2015 in the same landscape), cameras were left in each location for an average of 45 days and then moved to another area. However, in some cases cameras were left for longer to confirm detections of individual tigers. Trap-days for some cameras were reduced because of damage by elephants Elephas maximus, theft or malfunction. Because of the potential for variation in detectability
using hybrid (i.e. combined video and photograph) and pic- ture modes, we considered a detection to be the occurrence of at least one photograph or video of a target species per location per day.We used daily occasions for detection his- tories, from 00.00 to 23.59. The number of detections of the main prey species of large carnivores (wild pig Sus scrofa, barking deer Muntiacus spp., sambar Rusa unicolor, gaur Bos gaurus and banteng Bos javanicus) were used as ex- planatory covariates in a regression model to define the as- sociation between predators and prey. Barking deer refers to both Fea’s muntjac Muntiacus feae and red muntjac Muntiacus muntjak as these two species are of similar size and differentiation in photographs is difficult. For the ana- lysis, we summed the number of detections of each focal prey species per location. Total number of prey was defined as the sum of the number of all prey species and total number of large prey was defined as the sum of the number of gaur, banteng and sambar.
Landscape covariates
The landscape variables were: distance from the camera- trap to (1) the nearest permanent village in Myanmar, and (2) the nearestmain road; (3) forest areawithin a 1-kmradius of each camera-trap location; (4) non-forest area, i.e. bare ground and clearings, within a 1-km radius; (5) degraded forest area within a 1-km radius; (6) altitude (m); and
Oryx, 2023, 57(2), 262–271 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001654
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
