Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:57:38.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

K. Ullas Karanth  and
Melvin E. Sunquist
K. Ullas Karanth*
Affiliation:
Centre for Wildlife Studies 499, Chitmbhanu Road, Mysore-570 023, India
Melvin E. Sunquist
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida 32611, USA
*
1K. Ullas Karanth, Centre for Wildlife Studies, 499, Chitrabhanu Road, Mysore-570 023, India.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We studied the population structure, density and biomass of seven ungulate and two primate species in the tropical forests of Nagarahole, southern India, using line transect sampling and roadside/platform counts, during 1986–87. The estimated ecological densities of large herbivore species in the study area are: 4.2 muntjac km−2, 50.6 chital km−2, 5.5 sambar km−2, 0.8 four-horned antelope km−2, 9.6 gaur km−2, 4.2 wild pig km−2, 3.3 elephant km−2, 23.8 hanuman langur km−2 and 0.6 bonnet macaque km−2. Most ungulates have female-biased adult sex ratios. Among common ungulate species, yearlings and young of the year comprise about a third of the population, suggesting relatively high turn-over rates. Three species (muntjac, sambar and four-horned antelope) are solitary, while others form groups. The study area supports a wild herbivore biomass density of 14,744 kg km−2. Among the three habitat types within the study area, biomass is lower in dry deciduous forests when compared with moist deciduous or teak plantation dominant forests. Using our results, we have examined the factors that may contribute towards maintenance of high ungulate biomass in tropical forests.

Keywords

biomassdensityherbivoresIndialine transectmammalspopulation structureprimatestropical forestsungulates
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 21 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

Barrette, C. 1977. Some aspects of the behaviour of muntjacs in Wilpattu National Park. Mammalia 41:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, S. H. 1976. Gir forest: an endangered ecosystem. American Scientist 64:38–40.Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R. & Laake, J. L. 1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monographs 72. The Wildlife Society, Washington D.C.202 pp.Google Scholar
Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.234 pp.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1983. Herbivory: the dynamics of animal-plant interactions. University of California Press. Berkeley. 437 pp.Google Scholar
Dinerstein, E. 1980. An ecological survey of Royal Karnali-Bardia wildlife reserve, Nepal. Biological Conservation 18:5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummer, T. D. 1987. Program documentation and user's guide for SIZETRAN. Michigan Technological University, Houghton. 26 pp.Google Scholar
Drummer, T. D. & McDonald, L. L. 1987. Size bias in line transect sampling. Biometrics 43:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhardt, L. L. 1978. Transect methods for population studies. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:131.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, J. F. 1980. The density and biomass of tropical mammals. Pp. 34–55 in Soulé, M. E. & Wileox, B. A. (eds). Conservation biology: an evolutionary ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, J. F. & Lockhart, M. 1972. An ecological reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park. Ceylon. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 101:1–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, J. F. & Seidensticker, J. 1976. Ungulates in southern Asia: a consideration of biomass estimates for selected habitats. Biological Conservation 10:293–308.Google Scholar
Eltringham, S. K. 1979. The ecology and conservation of large African mammals. University Park Press. Baltimore, 286 pp.Google Scholar
Gee, E. P. 1964. The Wildlife of India. E. P. Dutton & Company, New York. 192 pp.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. J. 1984. Body size, energetics and adaptive radiation. Pp. 1–24 in Hudson, R. J. & White, R. G. (eds). Bioenergetics of wild herbivores. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
Johnsingh, A. J. T. 1983. Large mammalian prey-predators in Bandipur. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 80:1–57Google Scholar
Karanth, K. U. 1987. Analysis of predator-prey balance in Bandipur Tiger Reserve with reference to census reports. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 85:1–8.Google Scholar
Karanth, K. U. 1988. Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in a south Indian tropical forest. M. S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainsville. 91 pp.Google Scholar
Kortlandt, A. 1984. Vegetation research and the ‘bull dozer’ herbivores of tropical Africa. Pp. 205–226 in Chadwick, A. C. & Sutton, S. L. (eds). Tropical rainforest: the Leeds symposium. Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Leeds.Google Scholar
Laake, J. L., Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. 1979. Users manual for program TRANSECT. Utah State University Press, Logan. 26 pp.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. 1961. Game management. (2nd edition). Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 481 pp.Google Scholar
McNaughton, S. J. & Georgiadis, N. J. 1986. Ecology of African grazing and browsing mammals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17:39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, H. R. 1982. The ecology and behaviour of ehital (Axis axis) in Royal Chitwan National Park. Nepal. PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. 240 pp.Google Scholar
Nair, S. S., Nair, P. V. K., Sharathchandra, H. C. & Gadgil, M. 1977. An ecological reconnaissance of the proposed Jawahar National Park. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 74:401–435.Google Scholar
Newton, P. 1987. The social organization of forest hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). International Journal of Primalology 8:199–232.Google Scholar
Norton-Griffiths, M. 1979. The influence of grazing, browsing, and fire on the vegetation dynamics of Serengeti. Pp. 310–352 in Sinclair, A. R. E. & Norton-Griffiths, M. (eds). Serengeli: dynamics of an ecosystem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Owen-Smith, N. 1987. Pleistocene extinctions: the pivotal role of megaherbivores. Paleobiology 13:351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, R. K., Kandya, A. K. & Kotwal, P. C. 1987. Ecological studies of Kanha Wildlife National Park. Journal of Tropical Forestry 3:48–66.Google Scholar
Panwar, H. S. 1987. Project Tiger: The reserves, the tigers and their future. Pp. 110117 in Tilson, R. L. & Seal, U. S. (eds). Tigers of the world. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge.Google Scholar
Pascal, J. P. 1982. Bioclimates of the Western Ghats. French Institute, Pondicherry. Maps 1–2.Google Scholar
Prater, S. H. 1971. The book of Indian animals. (3rd edition). Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. 324 pp.Google Scholar
Prins, H. H. & Reitsma, J. M. 1989. Mammalian biomass in an African equatorial rain forest. Journal of Animal Ecology 58:851–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puri, G. S., Meher-Homji, V. M., Gupta, R. K. & Puri, S. 1983. Forest ecology. Vol. 1. (2nd edition). Oxford & IBH Publishers. New Delhi. 549 pp.Google Scholar
Rodgers, W. A. 1979. The implications of woodland burning for wildlife management. Pp. 151–154 in Ajayi, S. S. & Halstead, L. B. (eds). Wildlife management in savanna woodland. Taylor & Francis Limited. London.Google Scholar
Russel, C. E. M. 1900. Bullet and shot in Indian forest, plain and hill. W. Thackcr & Company, London. 522 pp.Google Scholar
Sanderson, G. P. 1878. Thirteen years among the wild beasts of India. W. H. Allen, London, U.K.387 pp.Google Scholar
Schaller, G. B. 1967. The deer and the tiger. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 370 pp.Google Scholar
Schaller, G. B. 1983. Mammals and their biomass on a Brazilian ranch. Arquivos de Zoologia. 31:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. (2nd edition). W. H. Freeman & Company, New York. 859 pp.Google Scholar
Stelfox, J. G., Peden, D. G., Epp, H., Hudson, R. J., Mbugua, S. W., Agatsiva, J. L. & Amuyunzu, C. L. 1986. Herbivore dynamics in southern Narok, Kenya. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:339347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukumar, R. 1990. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6:33–53.Google Scholar
Tamang, K. M. 1982. The status of the tiger (Panthera tigris) and its impact on principal prey populations in the Royal Chitawan National Park, Nepal. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 184 pp.Google Scholar
Terborgh, J., Emmons, L. H. & Freese, C. 1986, La fauna silvestre de la Amazonia: El despilfarro de un Recurso de un renovable. Boletin de Lima 46:77–85.Google Scholar