176 S. Hameed et al.
understand the drivers of changing wild populations, we recommend population monitoring for all Indian primate species, with priority given to species that are threatened and/or for which we have limited or no data on their popu- lation status (e.g. the grey slender loris Loris lydekkerianus grandis and Nilgiri langur; Table 1). Seventy-three per cent of Asian primate species are con-
sidered threatened (Estrada et al., 2017). Threats to their sur- vival are dynamic, in terms of both scope and severity, and interact with each other at various spatial and temporal scales. We found thatmost threats to the long-term survival of populations of Indian primates were anthropogenic in origin, with modification of natural systems, such as habitat loss and fragmentation, being of particular concern. The conversion of natural habitats to agricultural lands appears to be the main cause of habitat loss and fragmentation (Gibbs et al., 2010). Destruction of habitat patches often re- sults in the loss of all individuals in the affected area (Wich &Marshall, 2016). The consequences of habitat fragmenta- tion on primate survival are determined by several factors, including the matrix embedding the habitat fragments, frag- ment size and inter-patch distance, and the species’ home range and diet (Michalski & Peres, 2005; Boyle & Smith, 2010; Meijaard et al., 2010). Some primates exhibit behav- ioural and ecological resilience in the face of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, but population decline is a common and immediate result of habitat loss (Estrada et al., 2017). To limit the threats faced by Indian primates, conservation activities must be initiated where they are ab- sent and continued where they already exist. One encour- aging example of population recovery is provided by population trend studies of rhesus macaques in northern India. Deforestation, excessive trapping and export of juvenile rhesus macaques for biomedical research reduced the population by 90% in the 1970s. However, the subse- quent ban on trapping and export, coupled with a stabilizing economy and increased agricultural production, helped the population to recover and thrive in a short period of time (Southwick & Siddiqi, 1994; Imam & Ahmad, 2013). Our results indicate that .60% of studies concerning
the population status of Indian primates were concentrated in the north-eastern Himalayas and southern Western Ghats, areas that harbour a rich diversity of primates (Srivastava, 2006; Karanth et al., 2010b). This spatial bias could be attributed to the fact that.70%of Indian primates are supported by moist deciduous, evergreen, and semi- evergreen forests in these two regions, with a total of 13 species inhabiting the north-eastern Himalayas and 10 species inhabiting the Western Ghats (Choudhury, 2001; Kumara & Singh, 2004). Although declining population trends were observed even within protected areas, these declines may have been more pronounced had these areas not been protected. Protected areas thus continue to play a crucial role for primate conservation.
Efforts have been made to modify and improve tradi-
tional monitoring methods and to devise new methods for generating robust estimates of wildlife populations. No population survey method is entirely free of bias, and some methods can be more suitable than others in a given situation, depending on variables such as species behaviour and landscape characteristics. To utilize methodological ad- vancements and obtain scientifically robust and reliable population estimates, given the ecological diversity of Indian primates, we suggest employing methods tailored to the target species and population to minimize bias. This includes methods not yet tested on Indian primates, for example the genetic capture–recapture method for elusive species, the double observer method for diurnal primates, cue or point count methods for species with dis- tinctive vocalizations, lure count methods for species that respond to playback calls, and occupancy-based methods for rare species. Further studies are needed to evaluate the appropriateness and statistical soundness of such methods for the study of various primate species. The dearth of recent population data and limited spatial
coverage of most studies on Indian primate populations highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive, nationwide primate distribution and population status study as a prior- ity for effective conservation. The threatened status and declining population trends of several Indian primates warrant immediate attention and efficient management to prevent a major extinction event in the region.
Acknowledgements We thank the Wildlife Biology Laboratory supported by the DST-INSPIRE Faculty Award Project at the Centre of Research for Development, University of Kashmir, for providing the academic, technical and administrative support; and two anony- mous reviewers for their critiques.
Author contributions Conceptualization: SH, TB; data collection, literature review: SH; data analysis: SH, MK; writing: SH, TB; resources and supervision: TB, MNA, AK; revisions and editing: SH, TB, MK, AK.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards Our analysis is based on data collected from pub- lished
studies.No ethical approval was required for this research, and it otherwise abides by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
Data availability The evidence supporting our findings is available on request from the corresponding author.
References
AREKAR, K., SATHYAKUMAR,S.&KARANTH, K.P. (2021) Integrative taxonomy confirms the species status of the Himalayan langurs, Semnopithecus schistaceus Hodgson, 1840. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 59, 543–556.
ASHALAKSHMI, N.C., NAG, K.S.C. & KARANTH, K.P. (2015) Molecules support morphology: species status of south Indian populations of
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
