TIGERS ACROSS BORDERS Tigers in the Indo-Bhutan Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex (TMCC)

©

Department of Environment & Forests, Government of Assam, India

Department of Forests & Park Services, Royal Government of Bhutan

UWICE

© MNP, RMNP, WWF-India, Aaranyak, ATREE, UWICE and Bhutan Foundation, 2012

Citation:Borah J., Wangchuk D., Swargowari A., Wangchuk T., Sharma T., Das D., Rabha N., Basumatari A., Kakati N., Ahmed M. F., Sharma A., Sarmah A., Dutta D. K., Lahkar B., Dorji T., Brahma P. K. Ramchiary L., Tempa T., Wangdi Y., Nedup T., Wangdi T., Tharchen L., Dhendup P., Bhobora C. R., Pandav B. and Vattakaven J. 2012. Tigers in Indo-Bhutan Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex. 2012. Technical report.

Designed by: Mallika Das /Anil CherukupalliPrinted at: New Delhi

Cover and Back Cover photograph: The river Manas that forms a natural boundary between the Manas National Park on the Indian side and the Royal Manas National Park on the Bhutanese side. © Anil Cherukupalli / WWF-India

Tigers in the Indo-Bhutan Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex

1

Tigers in the Indo-Bhutan Transboundary Manas Conservation ComplexPrepared by:Jimmy Borah, Dorji Wangchuk, Anindya Swargowari, Tenzing Wangchuk, Tridip Sharma, Dhritiman Das, Nilmani Rabha, Ajit Basumatari, Niraj Kakati, M Firoz Ahmed, Amit Sharma, Anupam Sarmah, Deba Kumar Dutta, Bibhuti Lahkar, Tshering Dorji, Probhod Kumar Brahma, Labanya Ramchiary, Tshering Tempa, Yeshey Wangdi, Tshering Nedup, Tandin Wangdi, Lhendup Tharchen, Pema Dhendup, Chitaranjan Bhobora, Bivash Pandav and Joseph Vattakaven

Department of Environment & Forests, Government of Assam, India

Department of Forests and Park Services,Ministry of Agriculture and Forests,

Royal Government of Bhutan

UWICE

©

2

FOREWORD

3

FOREWORD

4

PREFACETigers remain in a precarious existence in South Asia. Faced with threats of organised poaching and habitat loss, tiger populations need scientific monitoring, protection and transboundary cooperation among other things to ensure their long term survival. In this context, ‘Tigers Across Borders’ is an important publication that looks into the importance of landscape and transboundary level conservation efforts to safeguard tiger populations across the Indo-Bhutan Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex (TMCC). It is also the first such transboundary publication from this region.

TMCC is an important biodiversity area that spans across India and Bhutan. Manas Na-tional Park on India’s side and The Royal Manas National Park on Bhutan’s side are well known for their rich variety of flora and fauna as well as the scenic landscapes that encom-pass rivers, forested hills, grasslands and tropical evergreen forests. The two Protected Areas are listed as World Heritage Centres by UNESCO, underlining their importance as conservation landscapes. The Complex is also one of the few places in the world to be home to eight species of the cat family.

This report provides an overview of the combined tiger monitoring study undertaken on both Bhutanese and Indian sides using camera traps and the resultant tiger population estimates. Besides tigers, the study has also highlighted the presence of other cats such as the clouded leopard, common leopard, marbled cat and golden cat. It also looks at the challenges facing the Protected Areas. More importantly, the report’s authors provide well thought out and practical options to overcome the challenges in this area.

I hope that this report will highlight the critical importance of transboundary cooperation for better protection of our wildlife. The combined efforts of the Indian and Bhutanese authorities in putting in place this framework of cooperation are to be highly commended. Their success, as evidenced by this report’s contents and progress in the field, I hope will spur more such transboundary cooperative efforts between India and her neighbouring countries. For it is only through such concerted efforts that our Protected Areas and the incredible diversity of flora and fauna they harbor will find a safe and secure future and continue to thrive in the years to come.

Ravi SinghSecretary General and CEOWWF-India

5

© HARSHAD BARVE

6

This report would not have seen the light of the day if not for the tireless efforts from all the individuals who made this work possible in the field, office, home and everywhere else. It is not easy to prepare a report when a lot of people are involved, that too across borders. We, therefore, are grateful to a number of people involved in arranging logistics, coordinating meetings and working

to see that tiger conservation goes beyond borders and boundaries. The authors from both sides of Manas would like to convey their gratitude to the following:

MNP: The authors express their gratitude to Shri Kampa Borgoyari, Hon’ble Deputy Chief, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC); Shri Suresh Chand, IFS, PCCF (Wildlife) & CWLW, Assam and Shri Girish Chandra Basumatary, CCF & Council Head of the Department, Department of Environment and Forests, BTC, India as well as Mr. Ravi Singh, Dr. Sejal Worah and Dr. Dipankar Ghose of WWF-India for their support. The authors are grateful to following persons for assisting in the field in MNP: Sushila, Manoj, Rehman, Jamir, Yusuf, Bipul, Upen, Bhabananda, Tulen, Manas, Arif, Bedabrata and Kamal. Thanks to various field guards and frontline staff for their help during the survey period. Thanks to Ambica Paliwal for helping with maps. ATREE would like to acknowledge the contribution of UNESCO World Heritage Biodiversity Project to the study. Anil Cherukupalli, Sonali Nandrajog and Copal Mathur of WWF-India are thanked for their editorial and design help in giving this report the final shape.

RMNP: The authors extend their appreciation and gratitude to Director General, Department of Forest and Park Services, Hon’ble Secretary and Hon’ble Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Forest, Royal Government of Bhutan for their support and guidance. The authors also express their gratitude to the staff of RMNP for their assistance in the field and to WWF-Bhutan and Bhutan Foundation for their continued financial assistance for the study, conservation and park management.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

7

CONTENTSForewords 2Preface 4Acknowledgement 6Executive Summary 8

1. INTRODUCTION 10 1.1 Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex1.2 Royal Manas National Park, Bhutan1.3 Manas National Park, India1.4 Objectives

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 162.1 Data Analysis2.1. a. Abundance estimation2.1. b. Density estimation

3. RESULTS 193.1 Abundance3.2 Density3.3 Relative Abundance of the Prey and Sympatric Carnivores

4. DISCUSSION 23

5. CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS, CHALLENGES 25AND WAY FORWARD

5.1 Challenges5.2 Way Forward5.3 Conlusion

REFERENCES 32

TABLES, FIGURES AND ANNEXURES 37Table 1 - Summary of camera trapping to estimate abundance and density of tigers from the

Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex.Table 2 - Relative abundance indices for major prey and co-predator species recorded from

camera traps in the Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex. Figure 1 - Map showing camera trap locations in the Transboundary Manas Conservation

Complex.

ANNEXURE 1 - Pictures of identified individual tigers ANNEXURE 2 - Pictures of other carnivores and prey species

8

The tiger Panthera tigris, is used as a flagship or umbrella species in conserving wildlife and wild areas in many parts of Asia.

At the turn of the 20th century, around 100,000 wild tigers inhabited a range extending across Asia. However, poaching, along with loss of their habitat and depletion of their main ungulate prey species, have relentlessly

pushed tigers to the verge of extinction. Today, there are less than 3,500 wild tigers living in their natural habitat, scattered among the 13 tiger range countries, occupying a mere 7 percent of their historical range. A failure to turn these trends will result not only in the loss of wild tigers, but also bring about profound changes to ecosystem structures and dynamics throughout the tiger bearing regions. Taking steps to protect and recover tiger populations will also lead to saving other species under the tiger’s umbrella. To minimize the loss of tigers, range country governments, international agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations and other stakeholders are enhancing their efforts at all levels. The Government of India and the Royal Government of Bhutan are committed to conserving this species and have set aside priorities accordingly across the Transboundary landscape of Manas. The approach includes management of two or more contiguous Protected Areas or buffer zones across national boundaries, which includes Manas National Park in India and Royal Manas National Park in Bhutan.

This study used remotely triggered camera traps and the capture-recapture framework to estimate the abundance and density of tigers in the Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex. A total of 102 camera trap pairs were used in three ranges to cover more than 400 km2 in the area. More than 80 photographs of 14 individually identified tigers comprising of 8 males and 6 females were captured during the 5955 camera-trap night survey period. The population estimated was 15 (±SE 2.64) individuals from the study area with a 95% confidence interval range of 15 to 29. Tiger density estimates using ½ MMDM (Mean Maximum Distance Moved) was 1.9 (±SE 0.36) individuals/100 km2. In MLSECR (Maximum Likelihood Spatially Explicit Capture Recapture) analysis, estimated tiger density was 0.75 (±SE 0.21) individuals/100 km2.

In addition to tigers, the study also photo captured pictures of six others cats as well as prey and other associated species. These results provide insights into the richness and diversity which implies that the Manas complex is an extremely productive and rich landscape. The study results justify the assertion that the Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex as a landscape is crucial for the future of tigers, and the management of biodiversity should extend beyond the borders of Protected Areas and across political boundaries.

These are also the first scientific estimates of tiger density and abundance from the Manas National Park and Royal Manas National Park, Bhutan and shall serve as a baseline to gauge conservation recovery efforts in the Manas complex.

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

9

© JoSEpH VAttAkAVEn / WWF-InDIA

10

Ecosystems and species are not confined by geographical or political boundaries. Species of birds, insects and other animals pass through local, national and international borders and sometimes their migration routes

may even traverse continents.

Thus, modern conservation practice tries to use an ‘ecosystem approach’ that scales up conservation initiatives across larger areas, sustaining entire ecosystem structures and functions, and seeks to integrate both protection and sustainable management of biological diversity. Protected Areas are an integral part of biodiversity conservation. The Rio Convention defines Protected Areas as “geographically defined areas regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation goals” and includes a variety of purposes for conserving genetic species and ecosystem diversity along with sustainable use of resources for human welfare (IUCN 2005).

Transboundary Biodiversity Management (TBM) extends the management of biodiversity beyond the borders of Protected Areas, and across political boundaries. The approach includes management of two or more contiguous Protected Areas or buffer zones across national boundaries, and management of a cluster of separate Protected Areas across two or more countries. The major benefits of TBM, according to the World Commission on Protected Areas, include:• Promotion of international cooperation at different levels;• Enhancement of environmental protection across wider landscapes;• Use of participatory and inclusive approaches to integrate and agree on issues related

to human communities divided across borders;• Benefits to local and national economies.

For effective management of mammals within Protected Areas, the knowledge of what species is present, their relative abundance and distribution within the area is essential across different habitat types (Sheng et al., 2010). It is seen that well-designed monitoring programs can obtain such information and provide robust scientific data to wildlife managers to monitor the long-term population or biodiversity trends (Pereira & Cooper, 2006; Marsh & Trenham, 2008). In the absence of species abundance information, conservation management decisions are often based on crude estimates, expert opinion or educated guesses, which may result in erroneous decisions that can be counter productive for conservation (Blake & Hedges, 2004).

In the Indian subcontinent, conservation of the Royal Bengal tiger is at a crucial stage. The terrifying exposure of tigers disappearing from Tiger Reserves designed specifically for tiger conservation has led to the growing realization that this sub-species is declining rapidly where they were thought to be thriving (Wright, 2010). It was found that due to massive forest destruction in India, as well as poaching, much of the tiger populations disappeared in the last decade. In Bhutan, the tiger can be found from sub-tropical jungles near the Indian plains to above the tree line on the Tibetan border (Dorji and Santiapillai, 1989). The Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB) is committed to conserving this species and has set aside more than 51 percent of the country’s total geographic area as Protected Areas in the form of National Parks and

1.0INTRODUCTION

11

Biological Corridors. Global initiatives to conserve tigers by international organizations and Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have helped in raising awareness of the precarious state of this species. The tiger summit in Russia in 2010 further reiterated the commitment of international agencies and tiger range countries to save this species. Through concerted efforts of these international conservation agencies, NGOs and tiger range countries, many programmes are being initiated and implemented at global and regional level to increase the number of tigers in the wild. However, despite huge financial investments and efforts from these agencies and nations, tiger numbers continue to dwindle in most of the tiger range countries.

Global and regional level initiatives will need to be anchored to on the ground actions at the local level. We are of the opinion that conservation actions and initiatives at the local level are crucial to realize the global mission of preventing extinction of tigers in the wild. To implement such effective local level actions and to have meaningful global dialogues, an understanding of how many tigers remain in the wild is of crucial importance. It is with this objective that a long term tiger monitoring study was initiated in the Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex which includes the Royal Manas National Park (RMNP) in Bhutan and the Manas National Park (MNP) in India as the core area.

1.1 Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex (TMCC)TMCC is a transboundary landscape having unique biological significance. It straddles the Indo-Bhutan border from the Ripu Reserve Forest in India in the west, to Bhutan’s Khaling Wildlife Sanctuary in the east, and Jigme Singye Wangchuk National Park in Bhutan to the north. Thus, the TMCC encompasses the whole of India’s Manas Tiger Reserve and the group of Protected Areas in southern Bhutan. The area is home to one of the richest diversity of wildlife and vegetation found in the tropics. The long term vision of identifying TMCC is to ensure better management of the area for the benefit of its wildlife and people.

Map of TMCC

12

Manas National Park in India and Royal Manas National Park in Bhutan form the core of this extraordinary transboundary landscape which is located at the junction of Indo-Gangetic and Indo-Malayan realms and is a key conservation area in the Jigme Dorji-Manas-Bumdaling conservation landscape in the eastern Himalayan eco-region (Wikramanayake et al, 2001). It is also a Tiger Conservation Landscape (TCL) #37 (Northern Forest Complex – Namdapha - Royal Manas) entity (Sanderson et al., 2006). MNP and RMNP form an integrated natural landscape with the northern boundary of MNP in India being contiguous with the southern boundary of RMNP in Bhutan. This unique landscape represents immense habitat diversity ranging from tropical grasslands at 40 to 150 m through subtropical forest at 300 m to warm broad-leaved forest above 1000 m reaching up to 2000 m. The river Manas flows through RMNP and MNP making both parks a large track of a highly significant watershed area. The combined complex is characterized by its rich and unique biodiversity as well as its spectacular scenic attributes created by the meandering river, forested hills, alluvial grasslands and tropical evergreen forests.

The complex is home to two endemic and globally threatened species viz. golden langur and pygmy hog. The complex represents some of the last and best remaining habitats of the Bengal tiger, clouded leopard, leopard, Asian elephant, Asiatic water buffalo, gaur, greater one-horned rhinoceros and white bellied heron. The landscape is noted for its spectacular scenery with a variety of habitat types that support diverse fauna with nearly 30 threatened mammals and about 35 threatened birds. A combined record of both the National Parks indicate the local species composition to include more than 60 species of mammals, over 500 species of birds and more than 1000 species of plants.

The significance of the entire Manas landscape as a single Transboundary entity is acknowledged globally by no less than the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris. As noted by the IUCN Technical Evaluation of India’s Manas Wildlife Sanctuary World Heritage nomination in 1985: “The adjacent Manas WLS of Bhutan (44,300 ha) would provide an additional dimension to the site by adding habitat variety

Map of TMCC

13

Map of RMNP

and encouraging more cooperation in management of wildlife that migrates between both the reserves. When Bhutan becomes a State Party to the Convention, the addition of the area on their side of the border is highly recommended.” This recommendation for a transboundary entity for Manas has been reiterated by the World Heritage Committee over the years as well as during its most recent meeting held in Paris in June 2011: “Encourages the State Party (India) to…conduct a joint feasibility study with the State Party of Bhutan on a possible transboundary extension of the property, in order to increase its ability to adapt to climate change.” (WHC-35 COM 7A.13, 2011).

1.2 Royal Manas National Park, BhutanThe Royal Manas National Park (RMNP) is the oldest and richest park, in terms of biodiversity, in the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan. It started as a small game sanctuary prior to 1966 and then became Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. In 1993, the government declared it as Royal Manas National Park by merging Namgyal Wangchuck Reserve and adding connection in the north to Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park. In 2006, the park management also took over south eastern parts of the Jigme Singye Wangchuck National park. The RMNP gradually expanded to become the fifth largest national park, with an area of 1057 km2 (Management Plan, RMNP).

14

Map of Manas National Park

RMNP is located in the southern foothills of Bhutan (90° 35’ 03.61” E to 91° 13’ 28.51”E and 26° 46’ 16.16”N to 27° 08’ 38.70” N) and covers parts of the administrative districts of Zhemgang, Sarpang and Pemagatsel. It borders with India’s Manas Tiger Reserve in the south, thus forming a transboundary conservation landscape. To its north, it borders with Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park and is further connected to Thrumshingla National Park and Phibsoo Wildlife Sanctuary by biological corridors (Tempa et al., 2011).

RMNP stretches across elevations ranging from as low as 80m MSL at the southern foothills up to 2900m MSL in the north. Most parts of RMNP experience hot and humid summers followed by cool and dry winters with annual maximum temperatures ranging from 20˚C to 34˚C. The rainfall ranges from 200 mm to 4400 mm annually.

Owing to varied climatic and topographic features, the park has diverse ecosystems. RMNP is distinct from other preserves of Bhutan having large areas of subtropical scrub and grasslands ecosystems. The other ecosystem types represented in the park are: sub-tropical moist broadleaf forests ecosystem, warm broadleaf forests ecosystem, cool broadleaf forests ecosystem, subtropical dry chirpine ecosystem, temperate meadows and grasslands ecosystem and fresh waters & wetlands ecosystem (Sherub, 2004).

As per 1993 and 2006 surveys, RMNP confirms that 58 mammal species including 13 protected species (Rai, 2006), 300 plants (Wangchuk, 2006), and over 530 bird species have been found in the park (Sherub, 2004). RMNP is home to many endangered wildlife species including the tiger, greater one-horned rhinoceros, elephant, Asiatic water buffalo, dhole, golden langur, hispid hare and Critically Endangered species like pygmy hog. Carnivores other than tigers in RMNP are common leopard, clouded leopard, various wild cats and Himalayan black bear among others. Major prey species for carnivores are gaur, sambar, Asiatic water buffalo, barking deer, wild pig, serow, goral, Himalayan crestless porcupine, golden langur, capped langur, Assamese macaque and others.

15

1.3 Manas National Park, IndiaIn the Indian context, the chronicle of conservation history of Manas dates back to 1905 with the creation of a Proposed Reserve Forest called the North Kamrup Reserve Forest in the State of Assam. Thereafter, Manas Reserve Forest came into being in 1907, which was declared a Protected Area closed to hunting and killing of wildlife in 1908. In the year 1928, Manas Reserve Forest was declared as “Manas Wildlife Sanctuary” with an area of 360 sq km. In 1973, Manas Wildlife Sanctuary became the core area of Manas Tiger Reserve, encompassing 2837 sq km, one of the first eight Tiger Reserves launched under the guidance of the prestigious “Project Tiger” in India. In 1989, National Man and Biosphere Committee declared Manas as a Biosphere Reserve in India. In 1985, Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (391 sq km) was inscribed in the list of World Heritage Sites, as a site of outstanding universal value. Manas Wildlife Sanctuary was subsequently upgraded to National Park status with an area of 500 sq km. on 7th September 1990. In 2003, Manas National Park (MNP) became a part of Chirang-Ripu Elephant Reserve (2600 sq km) under the umbrella of “Project Elephant”. It has been recognized as an “Important Bird Area” on the basis of the excellent birdlife and significant population of some globally threatened species (Islam and Rahmani, 2004).

MNP with an area of 500 sq km is located in Baksa and Chirang districts (26°35’ to 26°50’N and 90°45’ to 91°15’E) of Bodoland Territorial Council in the State of Assam. The boundary of MNP is clearly distinguished with the Manas River to the north demarcating the international border shared with RMNP in Bhutan, to the south by thickly populated villages and to the east and west by the Forest Reserves. MNP forms the core area of the larger Manas Tiger Reserve which extends between the river Sankosh in the west to the river Dhansiri in the east. Elevation ranges from 50 m above MSL on the southern boundary to 200 m above MSL along the Bhutan hills.

The monsoon and river systems form four principal geological habitats, viz. bhabar, terai, marshlands and riverine tracts. The dynamic ecosystem process supports broadly three types of vegetation: (a) semi-evergreen forests; (b) moist and mixed deciduous forests and; (c) alluvial grasslands. The deciduous forests represent early stages in succession being constantly renewed by floods and are replaced by moist deciduous forests away from water courses, which in turn are replaced by semi evergreen climax forests. (WHC-11/35.COM/8E, 2011).

The MNP provides habitat for 22 of India’s most threatened species of mammals. In total there are nearly 60 mammal species, 42 reptile species, 7 amphibians and 476 species of birds (Choudhury, 2006), of which 26 are globally threatened. Noteworthy among these are the elephant, tiger, greater one-horned rhino, clouded leopard, sloth bear and other species. The wild buffalo population is probably the only pure strain of this species still found in India. It also harbours endemic species like pygmy hog, hispid hare and golden langur as well as the Critically Endangered Bengal florican (WHC-11/35.COM/8E, 2011).

1.4 ObjectivesThe broad objectives of this study were to:1. Estimate the tiger population and density in an intensive study area within TMCC.2. Estimate relative abundance of prey species within TMCC.3. Document species occurrence within TMCC.

16

Remotely triggered camera traps and capture-recapture framework were used to estimate the population size of tigers. This method is currently the most effective and widely accepted technique to get reliable population estimates of many different elusive species like tigers.

The method takes advantage of the unique stripe patterns on tiger pelage to distinguish individuals. The camera trapping programme was designed primarily to determine the abundance and density of tigers in TMCC, which also provided extensive data

on the occurrence of co-predators and prey species. Using these data, our intention was to establish baseline information that would facilitate the conservation of several other species in TMCC as a single conservation unit. The camera trapping in MNP was conducted as a part of the All India Tiger Estimation exercise of Government

of India, in collaboration with the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and Assam Forest Department, and involved conservation organizations WWF-India, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE) and Aaranyak as partners, while in RMNP the monitoring of the tiger population was carried out by the Department of Forest & Park Services, Royal Government of Bhutan, in collaboration with Ugyen Wangchuk Institute for Conservation and Environment (UWICE) and Bhutan Foundation.

The camera trapping study across the transboundary area was conducted within Bansbari and Bhuyanpara Ranges of MNP in India, covering 300 sq km area, while it was conducted in Manas Range of RMNP in an area of 74 sq km in the southern foothills of Manas. Camera traps were placed in 102 locations across the three ranges within TMCC (Figure 1) from November 2010 to February 2011. We used combinations of CUDDEBACK (Non Typical, Wisconsin), TRAILMASTER (Goodson and associates, Kansas), PANTHERA Camera Trap V3 (Panthera, USA), CEDT (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore) in MNP and RECONYX (Reconyx, USA) camera trap units in RMNP for the study. A pair of camera traps were placed in each 4 to 6 sq km grid cell size, with distance between each camera varying from minimum of 1.75 km to a maximum of 3.15 km. The camera traps were deployed in best possible locations within each grid to ensure coverage of the entire sampling area, avoiding gaps large enough to satisfy the assumption that no animal had a zero probability of being photographed. The survey was, therefore, designed to cover the study area homogeneously to maximize the chance of photographing all animals present in the

2.0MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Trap Camera© WWF-InDIA

17

area (Karanth & Nichols, 1998). The time delay between photographs was set to the minimum in respective cameras. All the cameras were kept operational for 24 hours a day for 64 days, except in cases of malfunction or damage caused by elephants. Each day (24 h) was therefore defined as a sampling occasion (Otis et al., 1978). The duration of camera trapping for 64 days was adequate for assuming demographic closure (Otis et al., 1978) of the study population, as previous studies on large cats had suggested trapping periods of 2-3 months as sufficiently short to assume that no population change occurs during the study (Karanth, 1995; Karanth & Nichols, 1998; Silver et al., 2004). In MNP, all camera units were mounted on trees, on poles or in steel cages made specifically for the cameras. The cameras were placed 3-4 m apart on either side of a path or trail, with the sensor set at 20-40 cm from the ground. In RMNP, the cameras were placed 6-7 meters away from each other at a height of 45 cm from the ground and positioned in such a way that two cameras were not in the same line of view to avoid the flash of one disturbing pictures on the other camera. Efforts were made to place two cameras at each location, but sometimes in RMNP, certain camera stations could accommodate only one camera. In such cases, the other camera was placed a few meters away from the location (10-15 meter), forward or backwards, along the same trail. In addition to monitoring tigers, this exercise was also meant to record biodiversity, particularly the fauna of TMCC, so the sensitivity of the cameras was set to ‘high’ for maximizing captures of wildlife in the area. To deter and avoid damage from elephants in RMNP, fresh elephant dung was placed on the cameras and they were camouflaged to blend with the surrounding environment. The cameras were checked on a daily basis by a team of researchers at MNP, while it was monitored twice a month wherever possible in RMNP. Some of the camera traps could only be monitored once in a month due to logistical constraints at RMNP. Although the same camera locations were maintained throughout the study duration, the cameras were shifted 100-200 m from the original location whenever a sign of trap shyness was observed. The photo captured individual tigers were idenitfied by their stripe patterns. Every photo captured tiger was given a unique identification number (e.g. TM1M, TM2F etc) after carefully examining the position and shape of stripes on the flanks, limbs, forequarters and sometimes even tail (Schaller, 1967; Karanth, 1995; Franklin et al., 1999).

2.1 Data Analysis

2.1. a. Abundance estimation Individual capture histories were developed for tigers in a standard ‘X-matrix format’ (Otis et al., 1978; Nichols, 1992). These were analyzed using models developed for closed populations in program CAPTURE (Rexstad & Burnham, 1991). An issue with the use of standard closed population models to estimate abundance is the assumption of demographic and geographic closure within the study period. In the majority of population studies on large, long-lived mammals, such as tigers, the sampling period is generally adequately short that the assumption of demographic closure (i.e. no births or deaths within the sample population) is logical. However, violation of the assumption of geographic closure (i.e. no animals move in or out of the study area during sampling) is much more likely. The sampled population was assumed to be demographically closed, as tigers are long-lived animals (Otis et al., 1978; Karanth, 1995) and the sampling period was relatively short. Population closure was also tested using open Pradel models implemented in program MARK. In Pradel models, Akaike Information Criteria corrected for small sample size (AICc) scores were compared between a model in which recruitment and survival were constrained to zero and to one, respectively (representing population closure), and an open model in which these

18

parameters were estimated based on observed data. The parameters, recruitment and survival, correspond to immigration and fidelity, assuming a population is demographically closed (Boulanger & McLellan, 2001; Harihar et al., 2009; Borah et al., 2012 in press). Jackknife estimator (Otis et al., 1978) has been used successfully in earlier photographic capture studies (Karanth, 1995; Karanth & Nichols, 1998; Karanth et al., 2004; Maffei et al., 2004; Simcharoen et al., 2007; Wang & Macdonald, 2009) to estimate capture probabilities and population size. However, it has been seen that the Jack-knife heterogeneity model appears less robust than other models when data are sparse or capture probabilities low and strongly heterogeneous (Boulanger et al., 2002; Harmsen et al., 2010; Gray & Prum 2011). Based on the capture recapture history generated from our study, parameter estimates were generated under the Mb model which turned out to be the best-fit model for the present study in program CAPTURE.

2.1. b. Density estimation: Tiger densities (per 100 km2) were estimated by dividing the population size (N) by the effective sampled area, based on the abundance estimates generated. The effective sample area was computed following the approach developed by Wilson & Anderson (1985), using the half of the mean maximum distance moved (HMMDM) method, in which a buffer of HMMDM for all individuals captured at more than one camera-trap location is added to the trapping grid polygon (Karanth & Nichols, 1998). Density estimates were also obtained using full maximum likelihood spatially explicit capture recapture (MLSECR) in Program DENSITY (DENSITY 4.4, www.otago.ac.nz/density), which did not rely upon closed population estimates from CAPTURE. The buffer width around the trapping grid was set at 10 km and a half-normal spatial capture probability function was assumed and a Poisson distribution of home-range centres for estimating density.

© JoSEpH VAttAkAVEn / WWF InDIA

19

14 individually identified tigers comprising 8 males and 6 females were photo captured during the 5955 camera-trap night survey period.

Out of the 14 tigers identified, 10 different individuals were captured separately i.e. 5 individuals each in MNP and RMNP, whilst 4 individuals were common to both the areas (TMCC). Capture frequencies varied from 1 to 5 for the individuals. In program MARK, the open Pradel model estimated survivorship (θ) at 0.98 (±SE 0.008) and recruitment (f) at 0.02 (±SE 0.008) for the tiger population. The constrained Pradel model, in which θ was set at 1.0 and f at 0.0 (the closed model), was better supported (ΔAICc 771.93) than the open model (ΔAICc 856.5). Therefore, it was reasonable to consider the population closure for tigers to justify analysis within a closed capture recapture framework.

3.1 AbundanceThe overall model selection test ranked Mb (behavioural response to capture) as the best model (Criteria rated 1) in program CAPTURE. Tests for the effect of a behavioural response (Х2 = 15.77, df=1, P=0.00007) supported the suitability of the model in Program CAPTURE. The probability of detecting an individual on at least one sampling occasion (Average p-hat) was 0.03, while the estimated probability of recapture (average c-hat) was 0.12. The population estimate using Mb with the zippin estimator was 15 (±SE 2.64) individuals with a 95% confidence interval range of 15 to 29.

3.2 Density:The Maximum Distance Moved (MDM) by recaptured individuals between photo captures was between 2.1 km and 30.7 km (mean 8.4; ±SE 2.9). Based on HMMDM, the total sampling area was estimated to be 789.20 km2 (±SE 50.98). Tiger density

3.0RESULTS

Tiger pug marks© WWF-InDIA

20

© WWF-InDIA

21

estimates based on estimate from model Mb in CAPTURE was 1.9 (±SE 0.36) individuals/100 km2. Tiger density based on MLSECR analysis in DENSITY, was estimated at 0.75 (±SE 0.21) individuals/100 km2.

3.3 Relative Abundance of Prey & Sympatric Carnivore Species: Monitoring prey and other carnivore populations is an essential part of wildlife management. In TMCC, prey species are of high natural conservation value and are important prey for tigers and other sympatric carnivores.

Although line transect surveys were carried out in MNP within two ranges for estimating prey density, due to logistics and security issues, it was not possible to conduct a transect survey to estimate the density of prey animals in RMNP. Therefore, camera-trapped data of prey animals was used to calculate relative-abundance index (Table 2) to get an overview of the prey species present in TMCC. This study, therefore, presents the first relative abundance estimates for major prey and carnivore species from TMCC.

An index of relative abundance (RAI) was calculated as the number of days required for obtaining photo capture of a species, described as RAI1 in Carbone et al. (2001) based on photo capture rates of carnivores and prey species. When individuals of these species cannot be distinguished from each other, RAI1 is a useful tool to compare relative abundances of species (Carbone et al., 2001; O’Brien et al., 2003). The number of days required to acquire a photograph (RAI1) was expected to decrease as density increased (Carbone et al., 2001). The inverse of RAI1 was also used, which was the number of photographs acquired per day (RAI2) and increased as density increased, making it an easily interpreted index (O’Brien et al. 2003). RAI2 was scaled to photographs per 100 trap-days. Independence of detections was defined following O’Brien et al. (2003). Studies have suggested that RAI1 is negatively correlated to species abundance (Carbone et al., 2001; O’Brien et al., 2003) and therefore, is a useful tool to compare the relative abundances of species, particularly when individuals of the species cannot be distinguished from each other.

RAI1 values for the photo captured species ranged from 1 day (elephants) to 5955 days (marbled cat) indicating varied abundance between different species. RAI2 values (expressed as photos/100 trap-days) ranged from 0.01 photos/100 trap-days to 55.25 photos/100 trap-days for the photo captured animals. Among the major prey species of tigers in TMCC sambar, barking deer and gaur seem to be relatively abundant, based on RAI1, to sustain the tigers within TMCC.

It was possible to photo capture different species of felids from the sampled area with the help of camera traps. It was found that leopards, clouded leopards and leopard cats were in abundant numbers in the area based on the relative abundance indices. 5 pictures of golden cat and 1 of marbled cat were also photo captured. Fishing Cat has not been photo captured yet from the sampled area, although it has been sighted directly within MNP. The abundance and density estimates for leopards and clouded leopards from MNP were also determined. 27 individually identified leopards comprising 11 males and 13 females (3 unidentified) and 16 individually identified clouded leopards comprising 4 males and 5 females (7 unidentified) were photo captured during the same survey period. The abundance estimate using Mh Jack-knife and Pledger model Mh was 47 (±SE 11.3) and 35.6 (±SE 5.5) respectively for leopards and 21 (±SE 6.6) and 25.03 (±SE 6.8) for clouded leopards. Density estimates using

22

MLSECR was 3.4 (±SE 0.82) and 4.73 (±SE 1.43) individuals/100 km2 for leopards and clouded leopards respectively (Borah et al., 2012 in press). The estimates of these species across TMCC will be determined soon.

The camera traps also helped to document the movement of the translocated/re-introduced rhinos in MNP. The pictures helped the rhino monitoring team at MNP to understand their movement via photographic evidence. It was seen that the rhinos were traversing between the borders opportunistically.

This study provides strong evidence of the significance of Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex for prey and carnivore conservation. Although proper density estimate for prey population across TMCC could not be ascertained, the area is believed to hold reasonable prey populations which can help in sustaining good tiger population. However, for tiger populations to recover and survive within the landscape, a stronger protection regime and a commitment to conservation from the highest levels of government is essential. Prey species play a vital role in structuring carnivore populations (Karanth et al., 2004). Decline in prey population is a major factor in the decline of large carnivores including tigers (Tilson et al., 2010). Tiger populations within the TMCC are therefore dependent upon prey populations. It is therefore recommended that an intensive survey be carried out for the prey population in the next phase within TMCC using proper line transects and distance sampling methods with sufficient efforts to increase observations.

Monitoring team on patrol in RMNP © RMnp

23

This study presents the first abundance and density estimate for tigers from TMCC within India and Bhutan using capture recapture framework.

Tiger density based on conventional approaches was estimated (Table 1, Page 37). The camera trapping study yielded more than 80 pictures of tigers comprising 14 individuals in a total trapping effort of 5955 trap nights out of a possible 6592 trap nights. Apart from tiger, other carnivore species photographed included leopard (including melanistic/black panther), clouded leopard, golden cat, marbled cat, leopard cat, jungle cat, dhole, Himalayan black bear, sloth bear, jackal and civets. Herbivore prey species photo captured included gaur, wild pig, sambar, barking deer, goral, serow, elephant and porcupine. Such wide variety of mammal species in the landscape could be attributed to the varied geographical topography as well as the different vegetation types present in the landscape.

Photographic capture-recapture sampling is a reliable technique for estimating the abundance of tigers and other secretive animal species that can be identified individually from their natural markings. The present study further supports earlier studies (Karanth & Nichols, 1998; O’Brien et al., 2003; Karanth et al., 2004; Chauhan et al., 2005; Jhala et al., 2008, 2011; Sharma et al., 2009) on tigers using capture recapture framework. Testing for demographic closure may not be powerful with small sample sizes (Kawanishi and Sunquist 2004), and closure tests thus may not distinguish between a behavioural response and an open population (Soisalo and Cavalcanti 2006). The overall model selection test ranked Mb (behavioural response to capture) as the best model in program CAPTURE. Model Mb allows the animal to exhibit a behavioural response to capture and the model deals with the failure of the assumption that the initial capture does not affect subsequent capture probabilities. Based on the data collected, it is assumed that the individual tigers in the TMCC may be exhibiting behavioural response. The probability of detecting an individual on at least one sampling occasion (Average p-hat) was 0.03, and comparable to that recorded for the studies undertaken in rainforest areas in South East Asian countries, Malaysia (Kawanishi 2002), Sumatra (O’Brien et al., 2003) and other sites (Karanth et al., 2004). The current study at TMCC in an effectively sampled area of 789.20 km2 (±SE 50.98) sq. km., revealed a population estimate (Nˆ) of 15 tigers with a standard error (SEˆNˆ) of 2.64, while the estimated density (Dˆ(SEˆDˆ)) was 1.9 (0.36) tigers/ 100 km2 (based on ½ MMDM) and 0.75 (0.21) tigers/100 km2 (based on MLSECR).

Based on the higher abundance and density estimates for leopard and clouded leopard (Borah et al., 2012 in press) compared to tigers, it is assumed that there may be sympatric competition for food and space in predator guilds. Under these conditions, it is recommended studies be taken up on intra-guild competition, prey selection and niche partitioning in future which will be useful for guiding management of these sympatric carnivores in the landscape. It would be interesting to understand the intra-guild competition among these top predators and see how restricted habitat use and dietary overlap influence the abundance and distribution of tigers and other carnivores in TMCC.

Estimating densities from abundance estimates from closed population capture recapture models is largely based on observed animal movements (Borchers & Efford,

4.0DISCUSSION

24

2008; Karanth & Nichols, 2010). The best approach of Maximum Likelihood is to use the spatial capture histories of camera traps in a likelihood-based density estimation framework (Borchers & Efford, 2008; Efford et al., 2009). Since the spatial likelihood approach does not depend on adding a buffer to the trapping polygon for estimating effective trapping area, the resultant estimates are least biased by trap layout and density (Efford, 2004). It is, therefore at present, recommended that park managers utilize the densities estimated by MLSECR approach, in order to assess conservation intervention effectiveness for efficient management decisions. However, MLSECR remains inhibited by different assumptions relating to spatial use and animal distributions (Efford, 2004) in spite of latest developments for intrinsically estimating density. For studies on monitoring large carnivores, these assumptions need to be taken into account based on the ecology of study species as well as the features of study area (Gray & Prum, 2011).

Camera trapping is also a useful method to document species richness and estimate relative abundances since most of the species are nocturnal and rare which prevents normal observational studies. More than 5000 photographs of various different species of mammals in 5955 camera trap nights were recorded from the area. RAI1 values for the photo captured species ranged from 1 day (Elephants) to 5955 days (Marbled Cat) indicating varied abundance.

Jungle cat

25

For monitoring the success of conservation activities in various areas, baseline data on abundance and density estimates are crucial for various species of concern. This study has evidently established the existence of a breeding tiger population in the area. A healthy tiger population thrived in the Manas landscape before the civil unrest occurred on the Indian side.

However, it was seen that tigers continued to survive despite the decade long civil unrest. Studies have clearly shown that in the presence of a good prey base and connectivity the tiger populations are capable of rapid recovery (Harihar & Pandav, 2012). Considering the fact that the Manas landscape still has breeding population of tigers, a recovery is expected in the area with improved protection along with better law and order situation and management. The Manas landscape, besides Kaziranga Tiger Reserve, is the most promising tiger habitat in the whole of north-east India. With adequate law enforcement, this complex, will surely establish itself as a source site for tigers in the region.

The estimates from this study provide evidence that tigers in TMCC are effectively using the landscape along India and Bhutan. Further research studies in TMCC are of immediate need and would facilitate better understanding of all the major carnivore assemblages including that of tigers. Further, annual abundance and density estimation of tigers in TMCC will help monitor changes in large carnivore population dynamics.

The photographic capture-recapture survey was successfully used to estimate tiger population and density in TMCC. This study has also established a baseline for initiating a long-term monitoring program for tigers, co-predators and prey in TMCC. Whatever monitoring interventions are planned and implemented in future, it will be important to monitor the consequences for tigers and associated animal’s abundance, and this study presents the baseline for such future comparison.

The results of this study show that the TMCC is an extremely rich and productive ecosystem. In addition to continuation of the long term monitoring of tiger populations and other associated species in the landscape, future studies should also address connectivity issues between habitats across the border.

5.0CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS,

CHALLENGES & WAY FORWARD

26

5.1 Challenges:The TMCC landscape continues to face a number of challenges as outlined below.

• Civil unrest: Both the national parks within TMCC had to confront ethnic and political disturbance with grave security and conservation implications. The decade long ethnic strife of the Bodo indigenous community and rebel insurgent groups of India directly affected park staff, infrastructure, wildlife and habitat which hampered effective management of both the sites. However, conditions have since improved for the better with political stability and recovery of wildlife population.

• Poaching of wildlife and illegal logging: Poaching of wildlife and smuggling of timber has been largely brought under control in both the parks. However, the highly porous border between the two parks provides conducive conditions for clandestine activities by anti-social and criminal elements.

• Logistics constraints: Remote border locations, rugged landscape and poor basic infrastructure limit geographical mobility, hamper road access and create communication bottlenecks. Such situation constrains efficient patrolling and monitoring of the Protected Areas.

• Development activities: Increasing focus on development activities around and outside TMCC in the form of infrastructure development such as hydro projects, road construction, laying of power lines, irrigation and industrial enterprises have long-term bearing on the ecological integrity of the two national parks.

• Anthropogenic pressures: TMCC continues to face pressure from the thickly populated pockets of human settlements on the fringe areas of the respective sites as well as from illegal entry across the national borders. Dependence on forest resources for domestic consumption, commercial markets, livestock grazing and land encroachments continue to create management challenges for the park authorities to deal with the socio-economic dimensions of the problem.

• Research and monitoring limitations: Lack of skilled personnel and resources for scientific research and monitoring of habitat and wildlife is a challenge for informed management interventions in conservation. Incorporating principal concepts of modern ecological and social sciences in management and monitoring is imperative for ensuring the maintenance of the natural attributes of the Protected Areas.

5.1 Way Forward:A number of initiatives as mention below need to be undertaken to ensure that the TMCC landscape can overcome the many challenges and endure as a haven for a rich variety of flora and fauna.

• Integrated monitoring of wildlife: Given the dynamics of this transboundary landscape, a coordinated monitoring that aims to better assess the distribution and abundance of the wildlife species through a combination of field and remote sensing data and species distribution modelling is needed. The successful joint tiger monitoring effort during 2010-11 in the transboundary landscape should be replicated in future years and for other species as well.

• Joint patrolling: The Park Managers and range authorities should identify areas, frequency and mode of joint patrolling by forest staff at the field level for effective protection efforts.

• Information and intelligence sharing: Information about illegal activities like poaching, logging and other wildlife crimes across the landscape should be directly shared at the highest levels of the park management and subsequent directions for action can be intimated to the frontline staff for necessary action.

27

• Formal consultation mechanism: A formal consultation mechanism at the Park Manager level can ensure regular meetings and discussion between the authorities of both MNP and RMNP. This will aid in greater coordination in decision-making on issues of common interest for TMCC.

• Coordinated tourism strategy: To avoid bottlenecks in the tourism sector and encourage improved flow of tourists between both the National Parks, a coordinated tourism strategy is required which enhances tourism and income potential while ensuring ecological sensitivity.

• Habitat and climate studies: Collaborative scientific studies on drivers of habitat change including invasive species, fire, hydrology, along with the adaptation and mitigation of climate change impact is a priority for research in the landscape.

• Corridor connectivity: Landscape conservation looking beyond the park corridors connecting to Phipsoo in the west and Khaling in the east inside Bhutan and Sankosh to Dhansiri in India should be initiated at different levels to ensure long-term integrity of TMCC and its biodiversity.

5.3 Conclusion: This study’s results confirm that the Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex is an extremely unique and rich landscape with a variety of wild cats and a host of different prey species. This could be the only landscape in the world with 8 species of cats (felids) co-existing in the same area. The 8 species include: tiger, leopard, clouded leopard, marbled cat, golden cat, leopard cat, jungle cat and fishing cat. All of them except the fishing cat were photo captured in our camera traps. The fishing cat, however, was sighted directly by one of this report’s co-authors in MNP, confirming its presence. Other important carnivores like dhole, sloth bear and black bear also share the same habitat with these cats making this landscape unique.

TMCC as a conservation landscape is vital for regional and global conservation of tigers in the wild. The region forms an indispensible corridor for the Terai-Arc Tiger Conservation Landscape between Terai regions (of Nepal and India) with landscapes in north eastern India, Myanmar and south east Asia.

Transboundary conservation is receiving more and more attention and importance as countries recognize that their environmental security and social welfare depends upon the conservation and management of biological resources that span political borders. Transboundary conservation is particularly important in the Himalayan region, as many areas of rich biodiversity are located along and across natural borders.

Monitoring team on patrol in MNP, India

© AtREE

28

The future plans should evolve a lasting commitment by the two national governments of India and Bhutan for wildlife monitoring. WWF in both Bhutan and India is working to develop the Transboundary Manas Conservation Area (TRAMCA) concept to strengthen bilateral cooperation between the two countries. Besides tiger and prey monitoring, immediate activities should include local-level exchanges and the formalisation of exchanges at a higher level. Future programmes should also concentrate on developing specific field skills and practical training, to report poaching and illegal trade of species. These initial steps will inspire confidence to build partnerships and commitment to a long-term process of collaboration. Finally, efforts need to be made to develop a sustainable funding mechanism to ensure transboundary monitoring and cooperation between both the governments. In general terms, a strategy that consolidates and then expands the present achievements can be followed to strengthen the Transboundary conservation initiatives.

© DEBA DuttA / WWF-InDIA

29

© JoSEpH VAttAkAVEn / WWF-InDIA

© VIVEk R SInHA / WWF cAnon

32

BLAKE, S. & HEDGES, S. (2004). Sinking the flagship: the case of the forest elephants in Asia and Africa. Conservation Biology, 18, 1191–1202.

BORAH, J., SHARMA, T., DAS, D., RABHA, N., KAKATI, N., BASUMATRI, A., AHMED, M. F. & VATTAKAVEN, J. (2012). Evaluating abundance and density estimates for leopard and clouded leopard in Manas National Park, India: Conservation implication for rare carnivores. Oryx: in press.

BORCHERS, D.L., & EFFORD, M.G. (2008). Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture–recapture studies. Biometrics, 64:377–385.

BOULANGER, J., & MCLELLAN, B. (2001). Closure violation in DNA-based mark–recapture estimation of grizzly bear populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79: 642-651.

BOULANGER, J., WHITE, G.C., MCLELLAN, B.N., WOODS, J., PROCTOR, M. & HIMMER, S. (2002). A meta-analysis of grizzly bear DNA mark-recapture projects in British Colombia, Canada. Ursus 13:137–152.

CARBONE, C. S. CHRISTIE, K. CONFORTI, T. COULSON, N. FRANKLIN, J. R. GINSBERG, M. GRIFFITHS, J. HOLDEN, K. KAWANISHI, M. KINNAIRD, R. LAIDLAW, A. LYNAM, D. W. MACDOUNALD, D. MARTYR, C. MCDOUGAL, L. NATH, T. O’BRIAN, J. SEIDENSTICKER, D. J. L. SMITH, M. SUNQUIST, R. TILSON & N. W. WAN SHAHRUDDIN. (2001). The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tiger and other cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4: 75 – 79.

CHAUHAN, D.S., HARIHAR, A., GOYAL, S.P., QURESHI, Q., LAL, P. & MATHUR, V.B. (2005). Estimating leopard population using camera traps in Sariska Tiger Reserve. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India. Pp. 23.

CHOUDHURY, A.U. (2006) Birds of Manas National Park. Gibbon Books and the Rhino Foundation for Nature in NE India. 56 + 24 Pages.

DORJI, D. P. & C. SANTIAPILLAI. (1989). The Status, Distribution and Conservation of the Tiger Panthera-Tigris in Bhutan. Biological Conservation, 48:311-319.

EFFORD, M. (2004). Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos, 106: 598–610.

EFFORD, M. G., DAWSON, D. K. & BORCHERS, D. L. (2009). Population density estimated from locations of individuals on a passive detector array. Ecology, 90: 2676-2682.

FRANKLIN, N., BASTONI, SRIYANTO, SISWOMARTONO, D., MANANSANG, J. & TILSON, R. (1999). Using tiger stripes to identify individual tigers. In Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human Dominated Landscapes: 138-139. Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. & Jackson, P. (Eds).Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

REFERENCES

33

GRAY, T. E., & PRUM, S. (2011). Leopard Density in Post-Conflict Landscape, Cambodia: Evidence from Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 9999: 1–7; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.230

HARIHAR, A., PANDAV, B. & GOYAL, S.P. (2009). Density of leopards (Panthera pardus) in the Chilla Range of Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand, India. Mammalia, 73: 68-71.

HARIHAR, A. & PANDAV, B. (2012) Influence of Connectivity, Wild Prey and Disturbance on Occupancy of Tigers in the Human-Dominated Western Terai Arc Landscape. PLoS ONE, 7(7): e40105. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040105

HARMSEN, B. J., R. J. FOSTER & DONCASTER, C. P. (2010). Heterogeneous capture-rates in low density populations and consequences for capture-recapture analysis of camera-trap data. Population Ecology 53:1: 253-259.

IUCN (2005). Benefits Beyond Boundaries. Proceedings of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ix + 306 pp.

ISLAM, M. Z. & RAHMANI, A.R. (2004). Important Bird Areas in India: priority sites for conservation. Indian Bird Conservation Newtork. Bombay Natural History Society and Birdlife International (UK). xviii + 1133 Pages.

JHALA, Y.V., GOPAL, R. & QURESHI, Q. (2008). Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt., of India, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun.

JHALA Y. V., QURESHI Q., GOPAL R. & SINHA P. R. (2011). Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India, 2010. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. TR 2011/003 pp-302.

KARANTH, K. U. (1995). Estimating tiger (Panthera tigris) populations from camera trapping data using capture-recapture models. Biological Conservation, 71: 333-338.

KARANTH, K. U. & NICHOLS, J. D. (1998). Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology, 79: 2852-2862.

KARANTH, K. U., NICHOLS, J. D., KUMAR, N. S., LINK, W. A. & HINES, J. E. (2004). Tigers and their prey: Predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101: 4854-4858.

KARANTH, K. U. & NICHOLS, J. D. (2010). Non-invasive survey methods for assessing tiger populations. Pages 461–481 in R. Tilson and P. Nyhus, editors. Tigers of the world: the science, politics and conservation of Panthera tigris. Second edition. Elsevier, New York, New York, USA.

KAWANISHI, K. (2002). Population status of tigers (Panthera pardus) in a primary rainforest of peninsular Malaysia. Ph. D thesis. University of Florida p.p. 126.

KAWANISHI, K., & M. E. SUNQUIST. (2004). Conservation status of tigers in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation, 120:329–344.

34

MAFFEI, L., CUELLAR, E. E. & NOSS, A. (2004). One thousand jaguars (Panthera onca) in Bolivia’s Chaco? Camera trapping in the Kaa-Iya National Park. Journal of Zoological Society, London, 262: 295–304.

MARSH, D. M. & TRENHAM, P. C. (2008). Current trends in plant and animal population monitoring. Conservation Biology, 22: 647–655.

NICHOLS, J. D. (1992). Capture–recapture models: using marked animals to study population dynamics. Bioscience, 42: 94–102.

O’BRIEN, T., KINNAIRD, M. & WIBISONO, H. (2003). Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation, 6: 131-139.

OTIS, D. L., BURNHAM, K. P., WHITE, G. C. & ANDERSON, D. R. (1978). Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs, 62: 1–135.

PEREIRA, H. M. & COOPER, H. D. (2006). Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 21: 123–129.

RAI, D. S. (2006). Mammals survey report for the Royal Manas National Park, Nature Conservation Division, Department of Forest, RGOB, Thimphu, Bhutan.

REXSTAD, E. & BURNHAM, K.P. (1991). User’s guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Fort Collins: Colorado State University, USA. <http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/software.html>.

SANDERSON, E., FORREST, J., LOUCKS, C., GINSBERG, J., DINERSTEIN, E., SEIDENSTICKER, J., LEIMGRUBER, P., SONGER, M., HEYDLAUFF, A., O’BRIEN, T., BRYJA, G., KLENZENDORF, S. & WIKRAMANAYAKE, E. (2006). Setting Priorities for the Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005-2015. The Technical Assessment. WCS, WWF, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, New York - Washington, D.C.

SCHALLER, G. B. (1967). The deer and the tiger. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Illinois. U.S.A.

SHARMA, R. K., JHALA, Y. V., QURESHI, Q., VATTAKAVEN, J., GOPAL, R. & NAYAK, K. (2009). Evaluating capture-recapture population and density estimation of tigers in a population with known parameters. Animal Conservation, 13: 94-103.

SHENG, L., DAJUN, W., XIAODONG, G., WILLIAM, J. & MC SHEA, W. J. (2010). Beyond pandas, the need for a standardized monitoring protocol for large mammals in Chinese nature reserves. Biodiversity Conservation, 19: 3195-3206. Doi 10.1007/s10531-010-9886-x.

SHERUB & WANGCHUK, D. (2006). A birdlife survey report for the Royal Manas National Park, Nature Conservation Division, Department of Forest, RGoB, Thimphu, Bhutan.

SHERUB (2004). Ornithological report of the Royal Manas National Park. Nature Conservation Division, Department of Forest, RGoB, Thimphu, Bhutan.

35

SILVER, S. C., OSTRO, L. E. T., MARSH, L. K., MAFFEI, L., NOSS, A. J., KELLY, M. J., WALLACE, R. B., GOMEZ, H. & AYALA, G. (2004). The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar (Panthera onca) abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38:1–7.

SIMCHAROEN, S., PATTANVIBOOL, A., KARANTH, K. U., NICHOLS, J. D. & SAMBAR KUMAR, N. (2007). How many tigers Panthera tigris are there in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand? An estimate using photographic capture–recapture sampling. Oryx, 41: 447-453.

SOISALO, M. K., & CAVALCANTI, S. M. C. (2006). Estimating the density of a jaguar population in the Brazilian Pantanal using camera-traps and capture-recapture sampling in combination with GPS radio-telemetry. Biological Conservation 129:487–496.

STANLEY, T. R., & BURNHAM, K. P. (1999). A closure test for time-specific capture-recapture data. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 6: 197–209.

SUNQUIST, M. E. (1981). Social organization of tigers Panthera tigris in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Smithsonian Contribution Zoology: 336: 1–98.

TEMPA, T., NORBU, N., DHENDUP, P. & NIDUP, T. (2011). Results from a camera trapping exercise for estimating tiger population size in the lower foothills of Royal Manas National Park. UWICE and RMNP: RGoB. Lamai Gompa, Bumtang.

TILSON, R. L., TILSON, R. & NYHUS, P. J. (eds). (2010). Tigers of the world: the science, politics, and conservation of Panthera tigris. Academic Press, New York.

WANG, S. W. (2001). Conservation Management Plan for the Black Mountains National Park, Nature Conservation Division. Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu, Bhutan.

WANG, S. A. & MACDONALD, D. W. (2009). The use of camera traps for estimating tiger and leopard populations in the high altitude mountains of Bhutan. Biological Conservation, 142: 606-613.

WANGCHUK, S. (2006). Vegetation survey report of Royal Manas National Park and the wildlife corridor linking to Phipsoo Wildlife Sanctuary, Nature Conservation Division, Department of Forest, RGoB, Thimphu, Bhutan.

WHC-35.COM 7A.13. (2011). Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) (N 338): Decision adopted at its 35th Session. World Heritage Committee, Paris.

WHC-11/35.COM/8E. (2011). Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) (N 338): Adoption of Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value. World Heritage Committee, Paris.

WIKRAMANAYAKE, E. D., CARPENTERT, C., STRAND, H., & MCKNIGHT, M. (2001). Ecoregion-based conservation in the Eastern Himalaya. Identifying important areas for biodiversity conservation. WWF and ICIMOD.

WILSON, K. R. & ANDERSON, D. R. (1985). Evaluation of two density estimators of small mammal population size. Journal of Mammalogy, 66: 13–21.

36

WRIGHT, B. (2010). Will the tiger survive in India? In Tigers of the world: The science, politics, and conservation of Panthera tigris., eds. Tilson, R. and Nyhus, P. 2nd ed., pp 87-100. Boston: Elsevier.

© VIVEk R SInHA / WWF-cAnon

37

Total number of camera traps 102

Sampling occasion 64 days

Sampling effort (number of traps x sampling occasions)

5955

Camera trap polygon area 436.37 sq km

Estimated buffer width (1/2 MMDM) 4.2 km

Effective sampled area 789.20 (±50.98)

Number of individual tigers captured 14

Estimated numbers of tigers in the sample area using model Mb

15 (95% CI: 15-29)

Estimated tiger density in sampled area using ½ MMDM

1.9 (±0.36) tigers/ 100 km2

Estimated tiger density using MLSECR 0.75 (±0.21) tigers/ 100 km2

Species Independent photos

RAI1 RAI2

Barking deer 342 17.41 5.74

Sambar 609 9.78 10.23

Gaur 278 21.42 4.67

Wild pig 97 61.39 1.63

Serow 5 1191 0.08

Goral 10 595.5 0.17

Asiatic water buffalo 95 62.68 1.60

Asian elephant 3290 1.81 55.25

Rhino 54 110.28 0.91

Common leopard 140 42.54 2.35

Clouded leopard 42 141.79 0.71

Leopard cat 57 104.47 0.96

Marbled cat 1 5955 0.01

Golden cat 5 1191 0.08

Dhole 104 57.26 1.75

Table1: Summary of camera trapping to estimate abundance and density of tigers from Trans-boundary Manas Conservation Complex

Table 2: Relative abundance indices for major prey and co-predator species recorded in camera traps from Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex

TABLES, FIGURES AND ANNEXURES

Total effort: 5955 (from Nov. 18, 2010 to Jan. 20, 2011).RAI1: Number of days required to get single photo capture.RAI2: Number of photos per 100 trap-days.

38

Figure 1: Map showing camera trap locations in Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex.

Annexure I: Identified tiger individuals from Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex

1. TM1M

2. TM2F

39

3. TM3F

5. TM5M

4. TM4M

6. TM6F

40

7. TM7M

9. TM9M

8. TM8M

10. TM10F

41

11. TM11F

13. TM13M

12. TM12F

14. TM14M

42

1. Leopard

2. Black panther

Annexure II: Pictures of other carnivores and prey species

3. Clouded leopard

4. Leopard cat

43

6. Golden cat

5. Jungle cat

7. Marbled cat

8. Fishing cat(Courtesy: WWF-India/KKL)

44

10. Himalayan black bear

9. Dhole

11. Sloth bear

12. Jackal

45

14. Gaur

13. Sambar

15. Wild pig

16. Barking deer

46

18. Asian elephant

17. Asiatic water buffalo

19. Rhino

20. Serow

47

21. Goral

© HARSHAD BARVE

48

Park authorities signing the resolution for joint

tiger monitoring exercise in TMCC at Basbari MNP,

India

The Transboundary Manas Conservation

Complex (TMCC) team in RMNP Park Manager’s

office at Geluphu, Bhutan

© WWF-InDIA

© WWF-InDIA

49

© HARSHAD BARVE

For more information:

Manas National Park, IndiaField Director, Manas tiger Reserve,Barpeta Road-781315. Assam, Indiatel: +91 3666 261413 (o), 260288 (R)Email: fd.manastp@gmail.com

TIGERS ACROSS BORDERS

SUSTAINABLEPRINTING

Royal Manas National Park, BhutanChief Forestry Officer, Royal Manas National Park,Gelephu, Bhutantel: +975-6-251256/257258, Fax: +975-6-251255Email: rmnpoffice@gov.bt