Rapid recovery of tigers Panthera tigris in Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Nepal
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Rapid recovery of tigers Panthera tigris in Parsa
Wildlife Reserve, Nepal
BABU RAM LAMICHHANE, CHIRANJIBI PRASAD POKHERAL, SHASHANK POUDEL
DIPENDRA ADHIKARI, SAILENDRA RAJ GIRI, SANTOSH BHATTARAI, TEK RAJ BHATTA
ROB PICKLES, RAJAN AMIN, KRISHNA PRASAD ACHARYA, MAHESHWAR DHAKAL
U B A R A J R E G M I , A S H O K K U M A R R A M and N A R E S H S U B E D I
Abstract Information on density and abundance of globally Chitwan–Parsa complex should be managed as a single eco-
threatened species such as tigers Panthera tigris is essential logical unit for conserving the Endangered tiger and other
for effective conservation as well as to evaluate the success of wide-ranging species.
conservation programmes. We monitored tigers in Parsa
Keywords Camera trapping, conservation success, Nepal,
Widlife Reserve, Nepal, using camera traps, in ,
Panthera tigris, Parsa Wildlife Reserve, source–sink, tiger
and . Once believed to be a sink for tigers from adjacent
population
Chitwan National Park, Parsa now provides a new hope for
tigers. Spatially explicit capture–recapture analysis over
survey years revealed an increase in tiger density from
. to . individuals per km from to .
The tiger abundance was estimated to be seven (–), Introduction
(–) and (–) in , and , respectively.
Resettlement of communities from the core area, reduced
anthropogenic pressure, and improved security have made
T he tiger Panthera tigris, categorized as Endangered on
the IUCN Red List (Goodrich et al., ), remains in
% of its historical range (Joshi et al., ). The remaining
Parsa Wildlife Reserve a suitable habitat for tigers. Tiger habitat is not occupied at optimum density because of
abundance increased considerably within a km radius of poaching of tigers, hunting of their prey species and conflict
the evacuated village sites, from two in to eight in with local communities (Goodrich, ; Walston et al.,
and in . Population turnover has remained ). With the aim to prevent extinction and double the
moderate (, % per year), with persistence of individuals tiger population by , tiger range countries signed the
in multiple years. Dispersing tigers from Chitwan’s source St Petersburg Declaration on Tiger Conservation in
population accounted for a large portion (c. %) of the ti- (GTI, ), yet tiger populations continue to decline in
gers detected in Parsa. Conservation efforts along with an- many countries (Goodrich et al., ). Studies show that
nual monitoring should be continued in Parsa to sustain the the remaining habitat can support the global target of
increase and monitor the persistence of tigers. The doubling the number of wild tigers to , by
(Wikramanayake et al., ) if further degradation of habi-
tat is prevented (Joshi et al., ) and core breeding source
BABU RAM LAMICHHANE* (Corresponding author), CHIRANJIBI PRASAD POKHERAL, sites are protected and embedded in larger conservation
SHASHANK POUDEL, SANTOSH BHATTARAI and NARESH SUBEDI National Trust for landscapes (Walston et al., ).
Nature Conservation, Khumaltar, POB 3712, Lalitpur, Nepal
E-mail baburaml@gmail.com, baburam@ntnc.org.np Within Nepal, tigers are restricted to five protected areas
DIPENDRA ADHIKARI, SAILENDRA RAJ GIRI and TEK RAJ BHATTA Zoological Society of
and surrounding forests in the Terai Arc Landscape in the
London Nepal Office, Lazimpat, Kathmandu, Nepal south of the country, straddling the border with India
ROB PICKLES Panthera, New York, USA (Wikramanayake et al., ). Of global importance for
RAJAN AMIN Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London, UK
tiger recovery, the Chitwan–Parsa–Valmiki forest complex
of the Terai Arc Landscape was designated a Level I Tiger
KRISHNA PRASAD ACHARYA Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation,
Department of Forests, Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal Conservation Unit, a region of global priority, in
MAHESHWAR DHAKAL Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Sighadurbar,
(Wikramanayake et al., ). It also constitutes one of the
Kathmandu, Nepal global source sites of tigers (Walston et al., ). Despite
UBA RAJ REGMI and ASHOK KUMAR RAM Department of National Parks and this global recognition, Parsa had made little contribution to
Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal global tiger recovery efforts until recently, with a density of
*Also at: Institute of Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology, only . tigers per km recorded in , in contrast to
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, neighbouring Chitwan’s . tigers per km (Dhakal
Netherlands, and Evolutionary Ecology Group, Faculty of Sciences, University
of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium et al., ). Prey density had also been low in Parsa (.
Received March . Revision requested April . prey individuals per km) compared to Chitwan (. per
Accepted May . First published online August . km) (Karki et al., ) as a result of widespread hunting
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits noncommercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core.
written IP address:
permission of Cambridge University Press must46.4.80.155,
be obtainedon
for10commercial
May 2021 re-use.
at 18:24:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317000886
Oryx, 2018, 52(1), 16–24 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886Recovery of tigers in Nepal 17
FIG. 1 Parsa Wildlife Reserve
(with survey grid) and its
buffer zone, and neighbouring
Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
and habitat degradation through livestock grazing, leading (Fig. ). Initially established with an area of km, Parsa
to Parsa being considered the sink to Chitwan’s source. was augmented by the allocation of a km buffer zone
There are records of tigers dispersing from Chitwan being in , and in a further km was gazetted as core
poisoned in retaliation by local people (Smith, ), or poa- area (hereafter referred to as the extension area; Fig. ;
ched for their skin and bones. Dispersal of tigers from DNPWC, ). Parsa comprises highly porous alluvial sub-
high-density areas to lower density areas is a common phe- strate and is dominated by the sal forested Churia Hills run-
nomenon (Harihar et al., ; Harihar & Pandav, ). ning from east to west (into Chitwan) in the north of the
Tigers are territorial, and adult males are known to have Reserve. The streams running off the Churia Hills permeate
large territories encompassing – females (Sunquist, the porous sediment and flow underground, reappearing
). Subadults are known to disperse away from the south of the Reserve and restricting water availability in
natal area at the age of – months to colonize relatively . % of Parsa throughout the dry months. As well as tigers,
unoccupied areas (Smith, ). Parsa is home to other carnivores, including the leopard
In Nepal committed to doubling the size of its tiger Panthera pardus, the dhole Cuon alpinus, the striped hyaena
population by , with a goal of adults (GTI, ). Hyaena hyaena and the golden jackal Canis aureus. A wide
Parsa is therefore a clear target for conservation interven- range of wild prey species of tigers are found there, including
tions to meet the national goal. Here we examine the change the gaur Bos gaurus, the sambar Rusa unicolor, the nilgai
in Parsa’s tiger population over a -year period since signifi- Boselaphus tragocamelus, the spotted deer Axis axis, the bark-
cant conservation interventions began, and assess the fac- ing deer Muntiacus muntjak and the wild boar Sus scrofa
tors responsible for the change. (Thapa et al., ). Historically, Parsa received less govern-
mental and NGO support for tiger conservation compared to
other protected areas in the Terai Arc Landscape. However,
Study area since the Government of Nepal, with technical and fi-
nancial support from NGOs, has undertaken significant ef-
Parsa Wildlife Reserve is the easternmost protected area of forts to improve tiger conservation in Parsa (PWR, ).
the Terai Arc Landscape. It is connected directly Two settlements, Rambhori Bhata ( ha, households)
to Chitwan National Park along a km boundary and is and Ramauli Pratappur ( ha, households), had been
, km from Valmiki Tiger Reserve’s easternmost edge located in Parsa prior to the establishment of the Reserve
Oryx, 2018, 52(1), 16–24 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 May 2021 at 18:24:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531700088618 B. R. Lamichhane et al.
(Fig. ). The local people practised subsistence agriculture,
TABLE 1 Summary of survey effort for camera-trap surveys of tigers Panthera tigris in Parsa Wildlife Reserve (Fig. ) in , , and . Only a partial survey was conducted in ,
Feb.–May 2016
but activities such as livestock grazing, and collection of fod-
der, fuelwood, timber and other forest products resulted in
habitat degradation over a broad area (PWR, ). Conflict
3,681
Total
(79)
627
158
between local people and wildlife also resulted in retaliatory
21
killings (CNP, ). Both communities were resettled vol-
untarily during –. In addition to the village reloca-
Feb.–Mar. 2016
Extension area
Additional area in the south of the Reserve and some parts of the buffer zone in the east were also covered but we used data from the core area only, for comparison with other years.
tions, Parsa’s management authorities began a programme
of habitat enrichment in , maintaining nine artificial
waterholes in the dry season and increasing the area of un-
(27)
128
735
gulate grazing by . ha of grasslands.
21
31
Nov. 2014–Jan. 2015 Mar.–May 2016
Methods
Camera trapping We set camera traps in a grid of × km
Parsa
2,946
2016
cells (DNPWC, ), deploying a pair of camera traps in
(79)
499
127
21
each cell during the dry season in , and . The
entire core area of Parsa was covered by – camera-trap
stations. Cameras were active in each station for a minimum
of () to days ( and ). The survey effort was
,–, camera-trap days (Table ). In , km of
the extension area was covered with an additional camera
3,549
2014
(60)
499
130
stations. The Reserve was divided into survey blocks, two in
21
and three in and . The blocks were surveyed
Apr.–May 2013
successively because of the limited availability of camera
traps. Prior to deployment of cameras, potential sites where
tiger captures and camera safety could be maximized were 2
2,135
identified. We positioned the camera traps cm above
2013
(59)
499
138
15
ground, perpendicular to, and – m either side of game
trails, forest roads and riverbeds. Pairs of cameras were
Dec. 2008–Mar. 2009
placed at each sampling point to obtain images of both flanks
of photographed individuals to assist in identification. We used
2009 (partial)
Reconyx (Holmen, USA) & , Bushnell (Overland Park,
USA) Trophy Cam HD and Panthera (New York, USA) V &
and information was obtained from a published report (Karki, ).
1
1,762
V cameras. The cameras took three photographs per trigger
(54)
353
15
97
with no delay, and used white flash to obtain colour images
of tigers in low light to help with individual identification.
Minimum no. of sampling occasions (1 day each) in a
Estimating population abundance and density Tiger
identification was conducted by three independent
observers and cross-verified collectively by six or seven
observers. We also used ExtractCompare (Conservation
Research Ltd, UK) to verify individual tigers identified
Parameters obtained from Karki ().
visually (Hiby et al., ). Tiger density and population
size were estimated using spatially explicit capture–
recapture models in the package secr (Efford, ) in
R v. .. (R Development Core Team, ). The default
Sampling period (days)
No. of camera stations
Area surveyed (km2)
maximum likelihood algorithm with function secr.fit was
No. of trap nights
used to fit the model. To determine the local importance
of the former locations of villages for tigers, we
Parameters
subsampled a buffer area of km radius around the
location
village locations and calculated the number of tigers
detected there.
Oryx, 2018, 52(1), 16–24 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 May 2021 at 18:24:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317000886Recovery of tigers in Nepal 19
Determining tiger dispersal and persistence We compared
TABLE 2 Tiger capture rate, number of individual tigers captured, and population abundance and density estimates with % confidence intervals from camera-trap surveys in Parsa Wildlife
1.43 ± 0.33 (0.91–2.25)
the individual tigers detected in with camera-trap
photographs of those recorded in , and in
20 ± 1.9 (19–26)
Parsa. We also compared all tigers detected in Parsa with
tigers recorded in Chitwan National Park in and its
buffer zone in (Dhakal et al., ; CNP, ), and
Total
3.80
140
in Valmiki Tiger Reserve, India, in (Maurya & Borah,
73
19
10
9
; Chanchani et al., ).
Extension area
Results
3.67
11
27
32
22
1
Tiger density and abundance During – tiger
1.38 ± 0.34 (0.85–2.25)
density in Parsa increased from . ± SE . to
17 ± 1.53 (17–20)
. ± SE . tigers per km (Table ). Five, and
individual tigers were detected in , and ,
respectively, with an additional two tigers detected in the
extension area in . Tiger abundance increased
Parsa
2016
3.84
113
gradually in Parsa during – (Fig. ).
62
17
8
9
0.80 ± 0.25 (0.43–1.48)
Evidence of dispersal from Chitwan Over the sampling
11 ± 1.27 (10–16)
years a total of adult tigers ( females, males and
one of unknown sex) were detected (Table ). One male
and two females were detected in all years, and an
additional three individuals (two females and one male) 2014
2.17
45
77
10
were captured in years ( and ). Ten new
4
6
individuals were captured in . Of the individuals
0.78 ± 0.39 (0.31–1.98)
recorded, nine were captured first in Chitwan (in and
) and then dispersed to Parsa (in and ). One
7 ± 1.53 (6–13)
tiger (F, Table ) was first captured in Parsa () and
dispersed to Chitwan’s buffer zone () in the south
(Someshwar Hills, contiguous to Valmiki). There was no
2013
0.38
10
evidence of tigers dispersing between Valmiki and Parsa.
9
5
2
2
1
0.61 ± 0.32 (0.23–1.62)
Recolonization of tigers in evacuated village sites Tigers
were confined to a narrow strip in the middle of the
A tigress was captured from both Parsa and the extension area.
Reserve during (Fig. a) but occupied most of the
4 ± 0.47
Reserve in the following years (Fig. b,c). The survey
Partial survey conducted; estimates are from Karki ().
1
2009
failed to detect a single tiger within the km buffer of
4
2
2
Ramauli Pratappur village, which was in the process of
Reserve (Fig. ) in , , and .
Tiger capture rate (no. of detections per 100
No. of camera stations that captured tigers
relocation at the time. The following year four tigers were
No. of individual tigers captured (Mt + 1)
detected within the km buffer, two of which were
No. of independent detections of tigers
redetected in the same area in (Fig. ). Within the
Density ± SE per 100 km2 (95% CI)
km buffer surrounding the site of Rambhori Bhata
Tiger abundance ± SE (95% CI)
village, which was relocated in , two tigers were
detected in , four in and seven in (Fig. ).
Discussion
Unknown
trap days)
Parameters
Female
Our findings indicate a nearly threefold increase in tiger
Male
numbers in Parsa within years. This is a unique scenario
of tiger recovery, beyond the potential of natural growth
Oryx, 2018, 52(1), 16–24 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 May 2021 at 18:24:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531700088620 B. R. Lamichhane et al.
FIG. 2 Tiger abundance
estimates for Parsa Wildlife
Reserve (Fig. ), with %
confidence interval, based on a
spatially explicit capture–
recapture model using the
package secr in R (R
Development Core Team,
). Published data (Karki
et al., ) were used for the
estimate. The timeline at
the top of the figure highlights
key events that strengthened
the protection of Parsa.
TABLE 3 Persistence of individual tigers over years in Parsa Wildlife Reserve and neighbouring Chitwan National Park (Fig. ). Data from
Chitwan in and data from Parsa in were not available for cross comparison. Blank cells indicate not surveyed.
Tiger ID 2013 2014 2015 2016
F01 Parsa Parsa Parsa
F02 Parsa Parsa Parsa
M01 Parsa & Chitwan Parsa Parsa
M02 Parsa Not detected Not detected
U01 Parsa Not detected Not detected
F03 Chitwan Parsa Chitwan Parsa
F04 Not detected Parsa Chitwan Not detected
F05 Chitwan (Cub) Parsa Not detected
F06 Not detected Parsa Parsa
M03 Chitwan Parsa Chitwan
M04 Not detected Parsa Parsa
M05 Chitwan (Cub) Parsa Not detected
F07 Not detected Not detected Chitwan Parsa
F08 Not detected Not detected Parsa
F09 Not detected Not detected Parsa
F10 Not detected Not detected Parsa
F11 Not detected Not detected Parsa (extension area only)
F12 Not detected Not detected Parsa
F13 Not detected Not detected Parsa (and extension area)
M06 Not detected Not detected Chitwan Parsa
M07 Not detected Not detected Parsa
M08 Not detected Not detected Parsa
M09 Not detected Not detected Parsa
M10 Not detected Not detected Chitwan Parsa (extension area only)
M11 Not detected Not detected Parsa
without immigration. In the camera-trap survey of only , . per km in ; Dhakal et al., ; Karki
five tigers were detected (Dhakal et al., ). One of the vil- et al., ), with regular dispersal of subadults beyond
lages (Ramauli Pratappur) was still in the core area of the the Park’s boundary. Of the tigers identified in Parsa during
Reserve, where a tiger was killed in retaliation after it at- –, c. % had been detected previously in Chitwan,
tacked livestock and people in (CNP, ; Fig. a). including two cubs detected in and subsequently de-
Tigers recovered quickly, with a total of tigers detected tected in Parsa in as young adults (Table ). Habitat
in Parsa, and two others in the extension area, in connectivity of continuous sal forest between Chitwan and
(Fig. c,d). Parsa facilitated dispersal, particularly of young individuals,
Chitwan’s source effect was instrumental in the recovery leading to a quick recovery. It has previously been suggested
of Parsa’s tiger population. Tiger density in Chitwan has re- that the tigers in both protected areas comprise a single
mained high and stable in recent years (. per km in population (Walston et al., ). This is supported by our
Oryx, 2018, 52(1), 16–24 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 May 2021 at 18:24:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317000886Recovery of tigers in Nepal 21
results, which show two-way movement of three individuals
between the protected areas, and one individual holding ter-
ritories that straddle the Park boundary. We therefore rec-
ommend managing the two areas as a single entity.
Although dispersal of tigers from Chitwan to Parsa is not
a new phenomenon, this is the first recording of recoloniza-
tion of vacant habitat in a sink habitat by substantial num-
bers of individuals from a neighbouring source in Nepal.
In addition to increasing tiger density in Parsa as a result
of the influx from Chitwan, population turnover has
remained moderate, and persistence of individuals high.
When considered together with the Chitwan dataset, %
of tigers identified in persisted into and were re-
detected, and % of the cohort was redetected in
(Table ). Tigers are not simply passing through Parsa
but are holding territories and breeding. Two females
(F & F) and one male (M) were detected in all survey
years in Parsa. Pugmarks of at least two cubs were also dis-
covered in and within km of the evacuated site of
Rambhori Bhata village, indicating that, in addition to im-
migration, reproduction is now also contributing to the in-
crease in Parsa’s tiger population.
The proximate reason for the recovery of tigers in Parsa
was predictable, given the high density of tigers in neigh-
bouring Chitwan and the vacation of territory in Parsa fol-
lowing the alleviation of pressures that had historically
constrained the increase of tiger numbers there. The recol-
onization of Parsa can be attributed to two major interven-
tions: resettlement of villages from the core area, and
security enhancement in the core area and buffer zone.
Resettlement of villages from the core area
Our camera-trap results indicate two things. Firstly, tigers
started using the vacant areas immediately after evacuation
of the villages. Secondly, there is greater intensity of usage by
tigers of the land in the locations of the former villages than
across the rest of the Reserve, a phenomenon which would
have been impossible to achieve had the villages remained.
Given the limited availability of water in Parsa, the location
of the settlements close to the Reserve’s two principal water
sources and natural grasslands created competition for this re-
source between people and wildlife. Conflict with crop-raiding
elephants Elephas maximus and cattle-raiding tigers was com-
mon (CNP, ). The removal of households and their de-
mands on the forest’s natural resources substantially reduced
local habitat degradation and disturbance in tiger habitat in
Parsa’s core, and reduced poaching opportunities through re-
duced access to the Reserve, as has been recorded extensively in
India (Karanth & Madhusudan, ; Karanth, ).
The conversion of c. ha of farmland and settlement
FIG. 3 Camera-trap locations and tiger detection polygons in
Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Nepal (Fig. ) in (a) , (b) and into productive grasslands for ungulate grazing, and the in-
(c) . creased access of wildlife to water are not insignificant. Prey
Oryx, 2018, 52(1), 16–24 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 May 2021 at 18:24:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531700088622 B. R. Lamichhane et al.
density increased from . ungulates per km in (Karki protection was strengthened there (Wegge et al., ). In
et al., ) to ungulates per km in (Dhakal et al., India’s Rajaji National Park in the Western Terai the tiger
). In the greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros population increased rapidly, with a high immigration rate
unicornis also returned to northern Parsa, grazing on the following the relocation of Gujjars (the local tribal people)
site of the evacuated villages (DNPWC, ). and thousands of their livestock (Harihar et al., ).
Rambhori Bhata village was resettled km south of the With the increase in the tiger population, conflict be-
Parsa boundary in and Ramauli Pratappur was re- tween tigers and communities on the edges of Parsa is likely
settled c. km north of Parsa in and (PWR, to rise, as has been reported from Chitwan (Gurung et al.,
). Resettlement of communities from within protected ). Preventive and mitigation measures therefore need
areas frequently attracts criticism (Schmidt-Soltau & to be initiated. Although the core area of the Reserve is
Brockington, ) but studies from Chitwan have shown free of settlements, pressure from grazing, fuelwood and
that people being resettled were positive about the experi- timber extraction continues to encroach from the buffer
ence (McLean & Straede, ) and benefited socio- zone in the north and from the communities south of the
economically in their new location (Dhakal et al., ). – km strip of forest in the south of the Reserve that is man-
Households from the two villages within Parsa petitioned aged as a collaborative forest. This strip, which is not part of
for relocation because of the problems they were facing re- the designated buffer zone, is used by wildlife as a refuge, but
garding conflict with wildlife and limited access to markets, they face the threat of poaching and persecution from the
health and education. All households were granted land al- communities in the south. Eight of the tigers recorded
lotments in areas outside the Reserve boundary and received in Parsa were camera-trapped on the southern boundary
financial support from the Government of Nepal for reloca- of the Reserve in and we do not know if they went fur-
tion and house construction (PWR, ). ther south into the collaborative forest. Including the collab-
orative forest in future surveys will provide valuable
Security enhancement in the core area and buffer zone information about Parsa’s tigers. The ongoing work of the
Buffer Zone Programme is an essential counterpart to the
Until security in Parsa was controlled by a company of the strengthened security measures within Parsa, reducing
Nepal Army comprising c. men in seven guard posts, the demands of local people on the Reserve’s resources
equating to one man per . km. In the company was through alternative livelihoods, technical innovation and
upgraded to full battalion strength and shared with Chitwan, improved governance of communal resources such as the
increasing the standing force to c. men, or approximately community forest. This integrated conservation effort of
one man per km in Parsa. Two additional guard posts were strong security coupled with community support should
constructed near the northern boundary and three more in be continued to sustain the recovery of Parsa’s tiger
the extension area (Dhudhaura, Sahajnath & Ratanpuri) dur- population.
ing –. Providing auxiliary support to Parsa’s security Parsa presents a striking example of tiger population re-
force, community-based anti-poaching units were formed covery and progress towards achieving Nepal’s national goal
in , comprising . local youths from communities of doubling tiger numbers by . Following the manage-
around Parsa, who serve voluntarily in controlling illegal graz- ment interventions undertaken by the Reserve authority and
ing, hunting and forest resource extraction, and provide infor- conservation partners in recent years, Parsa has put in place
mation on poachers and smugglers to the Reserve authority. the foundation to facilitate tiger recolonization and popula-
The increase in security personnel and expansion of for- tion recovery, and illustrates the rapidity with which tiger
est guard posts in Parsa from seven in to nine in recovery can occur given the appropriate conditions of
increased protection of tigers and their prey from poaching. controlled poaching, inviolate space and connectivity to a
Strategically, the placement of the additional guard posts source population.
was important, particularly two posts in the northern part
of the Reserve, where there had been no patrols previously.
The guard posts near the two evacuated village sites secured Acknowledgements
the new grasslands that evolved there. With a year-round
water source, these grasslands are ideal for both ungulates We thank the Department of National Parks and Wildlife
and tigers, and would have been at risk from poaching in Conservation of the Government of Nepal for giving per-
the absence of security. The presence of anti-poaching pa- mission to conduct this research, and the Parsa Wildlife
trols in these areas deterred poaching attempts and facili- Reserve Office and the National Trust for Nature
tated the persistence of recolonizing tigers. Conservation for their support in implementing the
Recovery of tigers has been reported from other parts of camera-trap survey. We acknowledge the funding received
Nepal and India (e.g. Panwar, ). Tiger and prey popula- from ZSL Nepal, Panthera, the USAID Haiyo Ban
tions recovered in Bardia National Park, Nepal, after Program, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and WWF Nepal.
Oryx, 2018, 52(1), 16–24 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 May 2021 at 18:24:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317000886Recovery of tigers in Nepal 23
Leiden University, Netherlands supported the first author G O O D R I C H , J.M., L Y N A M , A., M I Q U E L L E , D., W I B I S O N O , H.,
during manuscript preparation and Open Access publica- K AWA N I S H I , K., P AT TA N AV I B O O L , A. et al. () Panthera tigris. In
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species : e.TA.
tion. The camera-trap surveys would not have been possible
Http://dx.doi.org/./IUCN.UK.-.RLTS.TA.
without the tireless effort of field staff, including officers, en [accessed June ].
rangers and game scouts of Parsa Wildlife Reserve, wildlife GTI (G LO B A L T I G E R I N I T I AT I V E ) () Global Tiger Recovery
technicians of the National Trust for Nature Conservation, Program. Global Tiger Initiative Secretariat, The World Bank,
and student volunteers from Tribhuvan University and Washington, DC, USA.
GTI (G LO B A L T I G E R I N I T I AT I V E ) () Global Tiger Recovery
Kathmandu University. We acknowledge the contribution
Program: Implementation Plan –. Global Tiger Initiative
of Mr Ashish Bista in data analysis of surveys and Secretariat, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
thank Abhishek Harihar and two anonymous reviewers G U R U N G , B., S M I T H , J.L.D., M C D O U G A L , C., K A R K I , J.B. & B A R LO W ,
for their valuable comments on the article. A. () Factors associated with human-killing tigers in Chitwan
National Park, Nepal. Biological Conservation, , –.
H A R I H A R , A. & P A N D AV , B. () Influence of connectivity, wild prey
Author contributions and disturbance on occupancy of tigers in the human-dominated
western Terai Arc Landscape. PLoS ONE, (), e.
BRL, NS, CPP, RP and RA designed the study. SP, DA, SRG, H A R I H A R , A., P A N D AV , B. & G O YA L , S.P. () Responses of tiger
(Panthera tigris) and their prey to removal of anthropogenic
SB and URR implemented the fieldwork and collected data.
influences in Rajaji National Park, India. European Journal of
BRL, RP and RA analysed the data. All authors wrote and Wildlife Research, , –.
reviewed the article. H I B Y , L., L O V E L L , P., P AT I L , N., K U M A R , N.S., G O P A L A S WA M Y , A.M.
& K A R A N T H , K.U. () A tiger cannot change its stripes: using a
three-dimensional model to match images of living tigers and tiger
References skins. Biology Letters, , –.
J O S H I , A.R., D I N E R S T E I N , E., W I K R A M A N AY A K E , E., A N D E R S O N , M.L.,
C H A N C H A N I , P., L A M I C H H A N E , B.R., M A L L A , S., M A U R Y A , K., B I S T A , O L S O N , D., J O N E S , B.S. et al. () Tracking changes and
A., W A R R I E R , R. et al. (). Tigers of the Transboundary Terai Arc preventing loss in critical tiger habitat. Science Advances, , e.
Landscape: Status, Distribution and Movement in the Terai of India K A R A N T H , K.K. () Making resettlement work: the case of India’s
and Nepal. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary. Biological Conservation, , –.
India, New Delhi, India, and Department of National Park and K A R A N T H , K.U. & M A D H U S U D A N , M.D. () Mitigating human–
Wildlife Conservation, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. wildlife conflicts in southern Asia. In Making Parks Work: Strategies
CNP (C H I T WA N N AT I O N A L P A R K ) () Annual Report of Chitwan for Preserving Tropical Nature (eds J. Terborgh, C. van Schaik,
National Park FY /. Chitwan National Park Office, Kasara, L. Davenport & M. Rao), pp. –. Island Press, Washington,
Chitwan, Nepal. DC, USA.
CNP (C H I T WA N N AT I O N A L P A R K ) () Baseline Survey of Tiger K A R K I , J.B. () Occupancy and abundance of tigers and their prey in
and Other Large Mammals in Churia Hills of Someshwar Buffer the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal. PhD thesis. Forest Research
Zone Area of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Chitwan National Park Institute University, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun,
Office, Kasara, Chitwan, Nepal. India.
D H A K A L , M., K A R K I , M., J N AWA L I , S.R., S U B E D I , N., P R A D H A N , N.M. K A R K I , J.B., J N AWA L I , S.R., S H R E S T H A , R., P A N D E Y , M.B., G U R U N G , G.
B., M A L L A , S. et al. () Status of Tigers and Prey in Nepal. & T H A P A (K A R K I ), M. () Tigers and Their Prey Base
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Abundance in the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal. Department of
Kathmandu, Nepal. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Department of
D H A K A L , N.P., N E L S O N , K.C. & S M I T H , J.D. () Resident well-being Forests, Kathmandu, Nepal.
in conservation resettlement: the case of Padampur in the Royal K A R K I , J.B., P A N D AV , B., J N AWA L I , S.R., S H R E S T H A , R., P R A D H A N , N.
Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Society & Natural Resources, , M.B., L A M I C H A N E , B.R. et al. () Estimating the abundance of
–. Nepal’s largest population of tigers Panthera tigris. Oryx, , –.
DNPWC (D E P A R T M E N T O F N AT I O N A L P A R K S A N D W I L D L I F E M A U R Y A , K.K. & B O R A H , J. () Status of Tigers in Valmiki Tiger
C O N S E R VA T I O N ) () Tiger Monitoring Protocol: Tiger (Panthera Reserve, Bihar, India. WWF-India, New Delhi, India.
tigris) and Prey Base Monitoring in the Terai Arc of Nepal. M C L E A N , J. & S T R A E D E , S. () Conservation, relocation, and the
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, paradigms of park and people management: a case study of
Kathmandu, Nepal. Padampur villages and the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
DNPWC (D E P A R T M E N T O F N AT I O N A L P A R K S A N D W I L D L I F E Society & Natural Resources, , –.
C O N S E R VA T I O N ) () Report on National Rhino Count . P A N WA R , H.S. () What to do when you’ve succeeded: Project Tiger
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, ten years later. Ambio, , –.
Kathmandu, Nepal. PWR (P A R S A W I L D L I F E R E S E R V E ) () A Report of Resettlement of
DNPWC (D E P A R T M E N T O F N AT I O N A L P A R K S A N D W I L D L I F E Ramauli Pratappur Village from Parsa Wildlife Reserve. Parsa
C O N S E R VA T I O N ) () Protected Areas of Nepal. Department of Wildlife Reserve Office, Adhabhar, Bara, Nepal.
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal. PWR (P A R S A W I L D L I F E R E S E R V E ) () Annual Report of Parsa
E F FO R D , M.G. () secr: Spatially explicit capture–recapture models. Wildlife Reserve FY /. Parsa Wildlife Reserve Office,
R package version ... Https://CRAN.R-project.org/package= Adhabhar, Bara, Nepal.
secr. R D E V E LO P M E N T C O R E T E A M () R: A Language and Environment
G O O D R I C H , J.M. () Human–tiger conflict: a review and call for for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
comprehensive plans. Integrative Zoology, , –. Vienna, Austria. Https://www.R-project.org/.
Oryx, 2018, 52(1), 16–24 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 May 2021 at 18:24:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531700088624 B. R. Lamichhane et al.
S C H M I D T -S O LT A U , K. & B R O C K I N G T O N , D. () Protected areas conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population.
and resettlement: what scope for voluntary relocation? World Conservation Letters, , –.
Development, , –. W I K R A M A N AYA K E , E., M C K N I G H T , M., D I N E R S T E I N , E., J O S H I , A.,
S M I T H , J.L.D. () The role of dispersal in structuring the Chitwan G U R U N G , B. & S M I T H , D. () Designing a conservation
tiger population. Behaviour, , –. landscape for tigers in human‐dominated environments.
S U N Q U I S T , M.E. () The Social Organization of Tigers (Panthera Conservation Biology, , –.
tigris) in Royal Chitawan National Park. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC, USA.
T H A P A , K., S H R E S T H A , R., K A R K I , J., T H A P A , G.J., S U B E D I , N.,
P R A D H A N , N.M.B. et al. () Leopard Panthera pardus fusca Biographical sketches
density in the seasonally dry, subtropical forest in the Bhabhar of
Terai Arc, Nepal. Advances in Ecology, , http://dx.doi.org/. BA B U RA M LA M I C H H A N E is interested in the application of geograph-
//. ical information systems (GIS) for wildlife management, and human–
W A L S T O N , J., R O B I N S O N , J.G., B E N N E T T , E.L., B R E I T E N M O S E R , U., D A wildlife interactions. CH I R A N J I B I PR A S A D PO K H E R A L is interested in
F O N S E C A , G.A.B., G O O D R I C H , J. et al. () Bringing the tiger back large carnivore biology and interspecies interactions. SH A S H A N K
from the brink—the six percent solution. PLoS Biology, (), PO U D E L is interested in conservation communication. DI P E N D R A
e. AD H I K A R I is interested in small mammals. SA I L E N D R A RA J GI R I is in-
W E G G E , P., O D D E N , M., P O K H A R E L , C.P. & S T O R A A S , T. () terested in applications of GIS and remote sensing in wildlife conserva-
Predator–prey relationships and responses of ungulates and their tion. SA N T O S H BH A T T A R A I is interested in herpetology. TE K RA J
predators to the establishment of protected areas: a case study of BH A T T A is involved in development and implementation of conserva-
tigers, leopards and their prey in Bardia National Park, Nepal. tion projects. RO B PI C K L E S specializes in tiger monitoring using camera
Biological Conservation, , –. traps. RA J A N AM I N specializes in the conservation of Asian and African
W I K R A M A N A YA K E , E., D I N E R S T E I N , E., R O B I N S O N , J.G., grassland and forest ecosystems. KR I S H N A PR A S A D AC H A R Y A is inter-
K A R A N T H , U., R A B I N O W I T Z , A., O L S O N , D. et al. () An ested in resolving human–wildlife conflicts. MA H E S H W A R DH A K A L is
ecology‐based method for defining priorities for large mammal involved in policy analysis of protected areas. UB A RA J RE G M I has
conservation: the tiger as case study. Conservation Biology, , served as manager of Parsa Wildlife Reserve and other protected areas
–. in Nepal. AS H O K KU M A R RA M is involved in geospatial modelling of
W I K R A M A N A YA K E , E., D I N E R S T E I N , E., S E I D E N S T I C K E R , J., L U M P K I N , wild elephants in Central Nepal. NA R E S H SU B E D I is interested in the
S., P A N D AV , B., S H R E S T H A , M. et al. () A landscape-based ecology of rhinoceroses and invasive species.
Oryx, 2018, 52(1), 16–24 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 May 2021 at 18:24:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317000886You can also read
