Anthropogenic pressure on large carnivores 267


TABLE 3 Model selection for logistic regression of detections/non- detections of tigers, leopards and dholes with prey and landscape covariates, with the number of estimated parameters in the model (K), the Akaike information criterion (AIC), difference in the AIC (ΔAIC; models with a value of 0 have the most support) and the Akaike model weights (wi).


Model (by species)


Tiger Village + gaur Gaur


Large prey Village


Degraded forest Forest


Total prey Elevation Pig


Sambar


Barking deer Null


Leopard Forest


Forest + village Degraded forest


Village + degraded forest Elevation


Null model Village


Barking deer Total prey Sambar Wild pig


Large prey


Dhole Wild pig Total prey Village Sambar


Barking deer Forest


Elevation


Degraded forest Gaur


Large prey Village + wild pig Village + wild pig + sambar K AIC ΔAIC wi


3 83.75 0.00 0.95 2 90.63 6.87 0.03 2 91.33 7.57 0.01 2 92.49 8.75 0.01 2 104.63 20.88 0.00 2 105.29 21.54 0.00 2 105.34 21.59 0.00 2 106.32 22.57 0.00 2 106.61 22.86 0.00 2 106.62 22.87 0.00 2 107.25 23.50 0.00 1 114.28 30.53 0.00


2 116.54 0.00 0.44 3 118.11 1.56 0.20 2 118.31 1.77 0.18 3 119.88 3.34 0.08 2 122.66 6.12 0.02 1 124.11 7.57 0.01 2 124.63 8.08 0.00 2 125.20 8.66 0.00 2 125.32 8.78 0.00 2 125.72 9.18 0.00 2 126.06 9.51 0.00 2 126.06 9.52 0.00


2 124.12 0.00 0.15 2 124.20 0.08 0.14 2 124.99 0.87 0.10 2 125.04 0.92 0.09 2 125.34 1.21 0.08 2 125.54 1.41 0.07 2 125.70 1.57 0.07 2 125.77 1.64 0.06 2 125.77 1.64 0.06 2 125.82 1.69 0.06 3 125.95 1.82 0.06 4 127.17 3.04 0.03


Forest + barking deer + wild pig 4 127.69 3.57 0.03 Null


1 132.99 8.86 0.00


species recorded, including the tiger, dhole, leopard, ele- phant, gaur, banteng, Malay tapir Tapirus indicus and Sunda pangolin Manis javanica. The long-term survival of large carnivores in the area is intrinsically linked to the pres- ence of large and medium-sized prey species, and the pro- tection and monitoring of the largest contiguous lowland forests of mainland South-east Asia are urgently needed. Unsurprisingly, tiger presence was positively associated with the presence of large prey species, in particular the


gaur, perhaps because it is the largest of these species, with an average weight of .170 kg (Karanth & Sunquist, 1995; Karanth et al., 2004). Gaur is a major component of tiger diet (42–61%; Andheria et al., 2007; Steinmetz et al., 2013). Thus, to increase tiger populations in the area, conser- vation management for large ungulates, especially gaur, is crucial (Ramakrishnan et al., 1999). Although also reported as a key tiger prey species (Karanth et al., 2004), we detected banteng in only three locations, within the 32 km2 northern part of the study area in Lenya Reserved Forest (in two grid cells, with six detections in total), probably because of a lack of grazing in the evergreen forest areas. These low numbers compared to other sites (Pedrono et al., 2009; Simcharoen et al., 2018) need to be further investigated. Although we did not collect our data in a way that was


designed to assess the effects of distance from human habitation, we covered a large area and camera traps were 2–33 km (mean 15 km) from human settlements. We there- fore consider the effect of distance to be a valid indication of an effect of human settlements, with the caveat that these trends need to be further explored in future studies in the area. Tigers were detected infrequently by camera traps near villages (Table 2) and have a low probability of being found in areas close to villages (Fig. 2a). Poaching is a threat to tigers, with recent poaching incidents documented: two tigers were poached in forest and close to the border with Thailand in July 2018, most likely for trade (N.M. Shwe, unpubl. data, 2018). We detected hunters with guns, dogs or vehicles in 4.4% of the total detections. Most of those detected appeared to be local hunters but some, recorded in the southern part of study area, may have been from Thailand. We recorded extensive snaring, primarily in the southern part of the study area, mostly in the forest interior near the village of Ywahilu, which is close to the border with Thailand, where most inhabitants are employed as daily workers. Snares were mostly made of cable, targeting large mammals. In 2018, two tigers were caught in such snares (Aung Phe, pers. comm., 2018). Smaller mammals and birds are also hunted in the area, using funnel traps (Savini et al., 2022). Our models suggest that leopard presence was positively


correlated with forest area rather than with prey. This could be related to higher mammal community diversity in pri- mary forests, which would provide leopards with a flexible diet. Leopards feed on small to large prey (Athreya et al., 2016; Lovari & Mori, 2017; Simcharoen et al., 2018) but tend to consume smaller prey where they coexist with tigers (Simcharoen et al., 2018). The high spatial overlap between the three large predators we recorded could have driven leopards to consume smaller prey species, as has been reported for other competitively subordinate felid species (Moreno et al., 2006). Alternatively, leopards could have shifted their diet towards primates, as has been reported in other locations (Karanth & Sunquist, 1995; Steinmetz


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