Decline of Indian primates 173
FIG. 2 The population status of Indian primates as indicated by recent studies (2000–2021).
was attributed to better spatial coverage and improved enu- meration techniques compared to previous studies (Kumar et al., 2018). For the Arunachal macaque Macaca munzala, which primarily inhabits the Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh, the increasing population trend could be the re- sult of enhanced spatial coverage and the absence of hunt- ing attributed to the religious/cultural beliefs of the Monpa people (Kumar et al., 2008). Elsewhere, the species has been reported to be at risk of extirpation because of pre- valent hunting practices (Sarania et al., 2017). In the absence of hunting, the population would be expected to fluctuate, with ups and downs over the years. However, studies reported a nearly 1.5% growth per year in the num- ber of groups recorded during 2008–2017 (from 35 to 41 groups; Kumar et al., 2008; Biswas et al., 2011; Sarania et al., 2017), which we assume to be a combined effect of absence of hunting and greater spatial coverage of surveys.
Main threats
Weassigned the various threats reported to three categories: (1) modification of natural systems, (2) human intrusions and disturbance, and (3) biological resource use according to the IUCN–CMP Unified Classification of Direct Threats (IUCN, 2023). Modification of natural systems (78%) such as habitat loss, fragmentation, modification and degradation was the main threat faced by Indian pri- mates, forcing them to occupy isolated forest patches, including within protected areas. Other threats (Fig. 3) included biological resource use such as hunting for bush- meat and retaliatory killing because of human–wildlife
FIG. 3 Number of reports indicating various threats faced by primates in India. Threats are categorized according to the IUCN–Conservation Measures Partnership threat classification scheme (IUCN, 2023).
conflict, and human intrusions and disturbance such as dam and road construction. The χ2 test indicated no signifi- cant association between the types of threats and population status categories (χ2 = 9.575,P = 0.653). Based on a compre- hensive review of these studies, we found that major threats faced by Indian primates are not species-specific, but area- specific, and vary both spatially and temporally from species to species. For example, Hanuman langurs face the threat of habitat degradation within protected areas (Narasimmarajan &Raghunathan, 2012),whereas habitat loss and hunting con- stitute a prevalent threat to species outside protected areas (Kumara et al., 2010;Mishra et al., 2020). Similarly, trapping and deforestation have been considered major threats to rhesus macaques in the past (Southwick & Siddiqi, 1994); however, the species is currently believed to be affected primarily by habitat loss and fragmentation (Sharma et al., 2012;Imam & Ahmad, 2013).
Survey methods and duration
Most studies (83%) in our sample focused on population es- timations of a single primate species. Distance sampling based on lines transects was the most commonly used meth- od (48%) followed by the total count method (25%). Other methods used (Fig. 4) included direct sighting/random sam- pling (18%) and call counts (2%). Of the studies included in our analysis, only 22% were conducted during the 5 years
Oryx, 2024, 58(2), 167–178 © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323000716
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
