search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Decline of Indian primates 175


FIG. 6 Spatial distribution of the population status studies conducted on Indian primates during 2000–2021.


threatened (including 35% Vulnerable and 35%Endangered) on the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2021). Establishing reliable baseline data on species distribution and population status using appropriate methods would offer insights into popula- tion trends across a temporal scale aswell as species’ responses to changing habitats (Lyons et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2019). Routine wildlife population monitoring (Nichols &


Williams, 2006), in addition to serving as a foundation for evaluating ecosystem functioning, conservation success and intensity of threats faced by wildlife (Stokes et al., 2010), also offers a comparative view of the effectiveness of different conservation strategies (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 2006). For example, population monitoring of bonnet macaques over


the past 3 decades has shown a sharp decline, with a 70% reduction in population size, which has been attributed mainly to habitat loss (decreased vegetation cover and can- opy connectivity) because of urbanization (Erinjery et al., 2017). Population monitoring of rhesus macaques over 6 decades has shown varying trends, with population size de- creasing by 90% during the 1960s and 1970s, followed by a partial recovery during the 1980s (Southwick & Siddiqi, 1994) and a substantial population growth of 203% during 1995–2010 (Imam & Ahmad, 2013). To evaluate population trends, a representative population of the target primate species must be identified and monitored in each habitat at least once every 3 years (Singh et al., 2020). To better


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