patterns of spatial and temporal habitat occupancy in...
TRANSCRIPT
Progress Report of Project Titled:
Patterns of spatial and temporal habitat occupancy in relation to crop raiding behaviour and genetic variation of free-ranging Asian
elephants (Elephas maximus) in north-west India using non-invasive genetic sampling
Submitted to WWF Nepal
WWF-Nepal Grant Agreement # WU 04
March 2015
Citation: De, R. 2015. Patterns of spatial and temporal habitat occupancy in relation to crop raiding behaviour and genetic variation of free-ranging Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in north-west India using non-invasive genetic sampling. Annual Progress Report submitted to WWF – Nepal (Grant Agreement # WU04). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
Progress Report of Project Titled:
Patterns of spatial and temporal habitat occupancy in relation to crop raiding behaviour and genetic variation of free-ranging Asian elephants (Elephas
maximus) in north-west India using non-invasive genetic sampling
Researcher: Rahul De, Junior Research Fellow Wildlife Institute of India Dehradun, Uttarakhand
Submitted to WWF Nepal
March 2015
Advisors: Dr. S.P. Goyal, Emeritus Scientist Sh. Qamar Qureshi, Scientist G Dr. Parag Nigam, Scientist E Wildlife Institute of India Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dr. A.C. Williams Programme Coordinator AREAS, WWF-Nepal
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 1
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 3
1. Introduction: ....................................................................................................................... 5
2. Objectives: .......................................................................................................................... 7
3. Study Area: ......................................................................................................................... 7
4. Work Accomplished: .......................................................................................................... 9
4.1. Collection of faecal matter for non-invasive genetic sampling .................................. 9
4.2. Distribution of solitary males and cow herds in relation to park boundary .............. 13
4.3. Standardization of faecal DNA extraction and amplification protocol .................... 13
4.4. Identification and frequency distribution of alleles .................................................. 14
4.5. Identification of sex .................................................................................................. 16
4.6. Assessment of crop raiding patterns and attitude of farmers .................................... 16
5. References: ....................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix – 1 ..................................................................................................................... 27
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude to the Director and Dean, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun for granting access to necessary facilities to conduct the study. We thank Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand for granting permission to carry out the fieldwork.
We acknowledge Project Elephant, MoEFCC, India, University Grants Commission and WWF, Nepal for providing financial aid to conduct the study
2
3
SUMMARY The Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) are declining both in terms of numbers and
range occupied throughout their strongholds. The north-west Indian population of elephants is
under severe pressure driven majorly by habitat fragmentation due to developmental activities
and other anthropogenic factors. Low genetic variability and reduced reproductive fitness are
characteristics of populations residing in such fragmented landscapes. Besides, intraspecific
and interspecific competition for resources, deterioration of habitat quality, deficiency of
natural resources and major land use changes cause elephants to stray out of the forests raiding
crop lands inflicting economic and emotional loss to humans as well as retaliatory killing of
elephants. The present project was initiated to gain understanding of socio-biology, crop
raiding patterns, population genetic structure and gene flow in north-western elephant
population in context of the conservation crises.
Partial funding of Rs. 2,00,000 (US$ 3141) was accorded by WWF-Nepal to carry out
field work for the project vide Grant Agreement #WU 04 for 2014-2015. During this period,
efforts were made towards collection of non-invasive faecal samples from the study area as
source of DNA. A total of 817 geo-referenced samples were collected out of which 68.3%
samples were collected upon direct sightings of solitary males and family herds (n=215). Age
class and sex of the animals were recorded upon encountering defaecation events. We collected
81% samples were of known female individuals, 17% were from known male individuals and
sex was not known for 2% including calves for which sex could not be identified upon sighting.
Based on direct observations, number of samples taken from calves, sub-adult, adult and old
animals were 7.3%, 15.4%, 41.4% and 35.9% respectively. Apart from solitary elephants
sighted, group size ranged from 2 individual to a herd of 16 individuals, with group size of 5
to 7 being most common (53% encounters). Of the total groups encountered, 37.8 % were
sighted outside Rajaji National Park Boundary. Average group sizes did not vary significantly
between distance classes from protected area (PA) boundary, both inside and outside PA.
Frequency of encounter for solitary males and cow herds were significantly different across
distance classes from PA boundary, showing dissimilar spatial pattern. Sighting frequency
during 2014-2015 was highest (25% for bulls, 20% for cow herds) at 0 to 1 km inside PA
substantiating the high risk of crop raiding along the boundary of Rajaji National Park.
Multi-locus microsatellite genotyping and identification of sex from faecal DNA
samples was standardized. Baseline reference data on frequency of different alleles in the
population was generated using high quality tissue and blood samples from the study area
which would be used to eliminate any false alleles being amplified from relatively inferior
4
quality faecal DNA samples. The allele sizes ranged from 94 bp to 169 bp.
We used a 28 point structured questionnaire survey in 34 locations stratified in 6 zones
along Rajaji National Park boundary and interviewed a total of 90 respondents dependent on
agriculture. We found that a total of 11 combinations of 5 commercial crops (paddy, wheat,
sugarcane, maize and mango) were cultivated in the area. Farmers cultivating only sugarcane
reported highest mean number of crop raids per year (107.5). Number of crop raids were
highest along the southern boundary of RNP (mean raids per year=80.26) compared to other
parts of the RNP-human settlement interfaces. Growth stages during which raiding was most
frequent for paddy, wheat, sugarcane and maize were mature, semi-mature, immature and
semi-mature respectively. Winter was the primary season of crop raiding as both sugarcane
and wheat were cultivate together in crop fields during this time. Raids were most frequent
during the period of 9 pm to 12 am. We observed that 64.7% and 85.3% of settlements under
regular crop raid surveyed (N=34) were situated within 500 m and 1 km from the RNP
boundary respectively. Though 80% and 96.7% of respondents opined that elephants were
major causes of crop damage and were threats to personal safety, 91.1% interviewee thought
that elephants should be protected. The most frequent reason cited for this attitude was that the
forests adjoining the crop field were natural habitat of elephants who had been and should
continue to remain there.
5
1. INTRODUCTION:
The Asian elephants Elephas maximus have been obliterated from 95% of their
historic range (Sukumar 2006) whereas, in India, their geographic distribution has shrunk
by 70% since 1960s (Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India 2011).
The Asian elephant is enlisted as ‘Endangered’ by IUCN, is placed on ‘Appendix 1’ of
CITES and is a ‘Schedule I’ species as per The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 of India.
Once widespread in India, the species has retreated to four general areas: north-eastern
India, central India, north-western India, and southern India (Choudhury et al. 2008)
with total population ranging around 21200 (Rangarajan et al. 2010). 32 existing as well
as proposed Elephant Reserves, spanning 65000 sq. km., have been delineated under the
aegis of Project Elephant commissioned in 1992 (Rangarajan et al. 2010)
Rajaji National Park (RNP), Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) and the proximate forests
in north-western India constitute Shivalik Elephant Reserve with a population of around 1510
(Rangarajan et al. 2010) elephants which is also the westernmost Asian elephant poplation.
Human population around RNP alone has increased twofold during past decade (Joshi
and Singh 2008). The habitat is under severe anthropogenic pressure in the form of land use
changes, overgrazing, tree lopping and construction of rail tracks, roads and especially the
Chilla power canal (Johnsingh and Joshua 1994). The once continuous elephant distribution
in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (from Katerniaghat in Bahraich forest
division in the east to river Yamuna in the Shivalik forest division in the west) has been
fragmented into 5 isolated populations (Johnsingh 1993). The dispersal of elephants has
been restricted to a great extent (Johnsingh 1993; Joshi and Singh 2008). Theoretical
predictions (e.g. Wright 1969; Varvio et al. 1986) as well as several studies (e.g.
Frankham 1996; Young et al. 2000; Johansson et al.. 2005) suggest that populations
dwelling in such fragmented landscapes would suffer from low genetic variability and
reduced mean fitness. The elephant populations of north-west India are shown to share
similar haplotypes with the north-eastern populations by Vidya et al. (2005b). Thus
maintaining genetic diversity of elephants in the study area is also important to attempt
‘genetic rescue’ (if required) in elephant populations of north-east India in view of increasing
fragmentation of elephant habitats.
Thorough information on population genetic structure and the distinctiveness of
populations are imperative for management of a threatened animal species (Avise 1995).
Use of genetic tools provides understanding of behaviour, evolution, and helps devising
conservation strategies for large social animals like elephants (Archie and Chiyo 2012).
6
Tracking movement patterns through direct observation, radio-telemetry or through
mark- recapture models may prove futile for large animals like elephants as dispersal events
persist for negligible time period relative to their life span hence may easily be missed
during observation and cost associated is always high. On the other hand, molecular
techniques involving non-invasive genetic sampling using dung or faecal matter are capable of
indirectly examining gene flow and substructures of elephant populations in a cost and time
effective manner. Such techniques, even in the absence of long term monitoring, can reveal
information on social organisation of the elephant herds by calculating genetic relatedness of
the members (e.g. Vidya and Sukumar 2005a, Chakraborty et al. 2014).
On the other hand, varying degrees of crop depredation by elephants are common
across their present range in Asia wherever habitat degradation and fragmentation leads to
elevated interaction between elephants and agriculture (Sukumar 1990, 2006; Williams et al.
2001). Crop raiding by elephants is recognized as a major challenge to elephant conservation
(Sitati et al. 2003). Competition for natural resources like food, water and space between
elephants and humans results in loss and fragmentation of wild habitat causing elephant to
stray out of the forests raiding crop fields, damaging property, injuring and killing humans
and livestock (Sukumar 1994; Karanth and Madhusudan 2002; Datta Roy 2003; Bipin 2010).
Elephants damage 0.8 to 1 million hectares of croplands annually (Bist 2002). On an average,
nearly 400 human casualties of elephant invasion are reported per year while about 100
elephants are killed by villagers in retaliation (Rangarajan et al. 2010).
To develop a practicable strategy for management of crop depredation, precise
information on temporal and spatial occupancy in relation to sex and age structure and on
number of crop raiding elephants, raiding patterns in terms of sex and age of raiders, foraging
patterns in terms of season and type of crop raided by individual elephants, group
composition of raiders as well as incidences of habitual recurrent raiding are of utmost
importance (Chiyo and Cochrane 2005; Chiyo et al. 2011a).
The current study of three years, therefore, has been undertaken to address the conservation
issues mentioned though a multidisciplinary approach involving ecology, molecular genetics and
geospatial tools.
7
2. OBJECTIVES:
The current study aims to conduct a thorough non-invasive genetic sampling of the
elephants of north-west India in order to study patterns of spatial and temporal occupancy in
relation to habitat characteristics and crop raiding patterns and genetic variations using
mitochondrial DNA sequences and nuclear microsatellite polymorphisms which would, in turn
allow us to examine genetic diversity, relatedness amongst individuals and herds, population sub-
structures, gene flow and phylogeography of the north-west Indian elephant population.
Population units will also be identified aiding conservation and management initiatives. The
specific objectives of the ongoing study are listed as follows:
i. Estimation and modelling of spatial and temporal habitat occupancy of elephants.
ii. To provide base line genetic structure information using mtDNA and nuclear microsatellite
variations across different populations,
iii. Identification of any patterns in dispersal in terms of age and sex of the elephant individuals,
iv. To document and test for population genetic differentiation and a recent bottleneck, if any,
v. To examine existence of any age/sex based patterns of crop depredation and incidences of
habitual raiding in relation to cropping patterns, and
vi. To study social organisation of Asian elephants.
In order to meet the project objectives, partial funding of Rs. 2,00,000 (US$ 3141) was
accorded by WWF-Nepal for carrying out field work vide Grant Agreement #WU 04 for 2014-
2015
3. STUDY AREA:
During 2014-2015, the study was conducted in the Rajaji National Park (RNP) and the
adjoining forest areas, including Dehradun, Haridwar and Lansdowne Forest Divisions.
Rajaji National Park (RNP) is located between 29º 15' N to 30º 31' N and 77º 52' E to
78º 22' E across the districts of Haridwar, Dehradun and Pauri Garhwal of the state
Uttarankhand in northern India. Total area of the park is 821 sq. km. It is limited in the west
by Delhi-Dehradun highway and is contiguous with Lansdowne Forest Division in the east.
To the south, it extends up to the agricultural lands that open up in the Gangetic plains while
to the north the park extends up to the base of Shivalik hills that meet the Doon valley. The
river Ganges divides RNP into two portions as it flows through the Park for about 20 km. The
eastern portion of the park is comprised of the former Rajaji and Motichur Wildlife
8
Sanctuaries while the western portion includes former Chilla Wildlife Sanctuary merged to
form the national park in 1983.
Figure 1: Distribution of different protected areas for the present study in Terai Arc Landscape.
The vegetation of RNP is mainly composed of heterogeneous deciduous species of
tropical and sub-tropical origin, a typical characteristic of central Sub-Himalayan tract with
an average annual rainfall of about 1200 mm.
A total of 49 mammal species are known to occur in RNP including Asian elephant
(Elephas maximus), sambar (Rusa unicolor), chital (Axis axis), muntjak (Muntiacus muntjak),
nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), wild pig (Sus scrofa), tiger (Panthera tigris), and leopard
(Panthera pardus). The avifauna of RNP is rich with 312 species, out of which 144 species
are residents, 89 are migrants, 53 are altitudinal migrants and 8 species are local migrants.
The reptilian fauna of the park includes 9 species of lizards belonging to 5 families and 28
species of snakes of 11 families. There are three communities living inside the park - the
Gujjar, the Taungya and the Gothia. There are several villages around the national park those
are dependent on the forest resources of the park.
9
4. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: 4.1. Collection of faecal matter for non-invasive genetic sampling:
During the period of June 2014 and March 2015, we collected geo-referenced faecal samples
by tracking and following elephant bulls and cow herds. We have also collected fresh faecal
samples upon opportunistic encounter whenever possible. We have sampled a total of 817
elephant dung boluses in the period between 25-06-2014 and 31-03-2015 from the study area
(Fig. 2). Out of these, 558 samples (68.3%) were collected by tracking bulls and cow herds while
the rest (31.7%) were collected on opportunistic basis.
Figure 2. Locations of faecal samples collected between June 2014 and March 2015.
Number of male individuals sampled were 95 (17%) whereas female individuals sampled
were 452 (81%). Sex could not be determined upon sighting for 11 calves (2%) (Fig. 3). Based
on observational classification using relative shoulder height, skin folds and pigmentation,
number of samples taken from calves, sub-adults, adults and old animals were 41 (7.3%), 86
(15.4%), 231 (41.4%) and 200 (35.9%) respectively (Fig. 4). Age classes were unknown for 259
samples which were collected opportunistically upon encounter. Data on group sizes were
recorded upon encounter (N=215) which, besides single individuals (35.3%), group size ranged
from herds of 2 to 16 individuals, with a group size of 5 to 7 being most common (percent
frequency of encounter 53.2%) and group size of 11 to 13 and 13 to 16 being least common
(percent frequency of encounter 1.4% each) (Fig. 5). We calculated mean group sizes in distance
classes having an increment of 1 km from protected area (PA) boundary both inside and outside
PA. Mean group sizes across distance classes varied from 5.2 (2 to 3 km inside PA) to 8 (5-6 km
10
inside PA) though there were no significant differences between mean group sizes across distance
classes (χ2=1.83, df=13, p>0.01) (Fig. 6).
Figure 3. Percent distribution of confirmed male and females in faecal samples collected from Rajaji National Park and adjoining areas during 2014-2015
Figure 4. Percent distribution of age classes in faecal samples collected from Rajaji National Park and adjoining areas during 2014-2015
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Male Female Undetermined (Calves)
% Sam
ples
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Calf Sub‐adult Adult Old
Percentage occurren
ce
Age Class
n=559
n=559
11
Figure 5. Percent distribution of group size classes as inferred from direct sightings of elephant herds in Rajaji National Park and adjoining areas during 2014-2015. .
Figure 6. Group sizes across distance classes from PA boundary as inferred from direct sightings of elephant herds in Rajaji National Park and adjoining areas during 2014-2015.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2 to 4 5 to 7 8 to 10 11 to 13 14 to 16
Group Size
Percentage occurren
ce
n=215
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>7 km 6‐7km
5‐6km
4‐5km
3‐4km
2‐3km
1‐2km
0‐1km
0‐1km
1‐2km
2‐3km
3‐4km
4‐5km
5‐6km
6‐7km
>7 km
Distance Classes
Meangroup size
n=215
12
Forest range wise distribution of samples are provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Distribution of collected faecal samples across different ranges collected from Rajaji National Park and adjoining areas during 2014-2015 S. No. Forest Division Forest Ranges No. Of Samples 1 Dehradun
Lacchiwala 1
Rishikesh 3 2
Haridwar
Chidiapur 67
Khanpur 2
Shyampur 212 3
Lansdowne
Kotdwar 9
Kotari 2 Laldhang 4
5
Rajaji National Park
Beribara 58
Chilla 227
Chillawali 28
Dholkhand 34
Gohri 6
Haridwar 126
Kansrao 15
Motichur 12
Ramgarh 3
Ranipur 6 6 Terai West Bailpadao 2 Total 817
.
13
4.2. Distribution of solitary males and cow herds in relation to park boundary: We compared number of sighting records of both solitary bulls and cow herds in interval
classes having an increment of 1 km from protected area (PA) boundary both inside and outside
PA. We found significant difference between usage patterns in bulls and cow herds across
distance classes (χ2=52.83, df=12, p<0.01). There was significant difference between sighting
frequencies (including both bulls and cow herds) in different distance classes (χ2=108.84, df=13,
p<0.01) with the distance of 0-1 km inside PA being the zone of maximum encounter frequency
(25.3% for bulls, 20.7% for cow herds) (Fig. 7). Areas in vicinity of the PA boundary being used
by elephant frequently substantiates crop fields near RNP boundary having a very high rate of
crop raiding.
Figure 7. Encounter frequencies of solitary bulls and cow herds across distance classes from PA boundary as inferred from direct sightings of elephant herds in Rajaji National Park and adjoining areas during 2014-2015.
4.3. Standardization of faecal DNA extraction and amplification protocol: In order to reduce problems associated with non-invasive genetic sampling (Fernando et al.
2003) we modified a DNA extraction protocol standardized by Ball et al, (2007). We used
phosphate buffer saline (PBS) to rehydrate the surface layer of dried faecal samples (n=10)
including 2 fresh, 5 more than 5 month old and 3 fungus infested samples. Then we used
>7 km 6‐7km
5‐6km
4‐5km
3‐4km
2‐3km
1‐2km
0‐1km
0‐1km
1‐2km
2‐3km
3‐4km
4‐5km
5‐6km
6‐7km
>7 km
Solitary bulls Cow Herds
Distance Classes
Percentage ofoccurren
ce
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
14
sterilized cotton swabs to lightly rub the surface to collect the intestinal mucosal layer taking
care to remove as less faecal material as possible. We used Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue
kit to extract DNA from the swabs using manufacturer specified protocols.
To check for efficiency of the extraction protocol, we attempted to amplify a microsatellite
marker EMU11 (Kongrit et al. 2008) with a gradient of 2µL, 4µL, 6µL and 8µL of DNA
template in all the extracted DNA samples with positive and negative controls. We got positive
amplification in 7 samples, both fresh and old, except for 3 fungus infested samples in lane
number 4, 7 and 8while using 6 µL of DNA template (Fig. 8).
Figure 8: PCR products amplified using marker EMU11 and DNA template extracted using
standardized protocol from faecal samples collected from Rajaji National Park and adjoining
areas during 2014-2015. Lanes 1 and 2 contained extracts from fresh samples; lanes 3, 5, 6, 9
and 10 contained extracts from samples older than 2 months; lanes 4, 7 and 8 contained extracts
from fungus infested samples.
4.4. Identification and frequency distribution of alleles in north-west Indian Elephant landscape: To minimize genotyping errors such as false alleles and dropouts, it has been suggested to
document allele distribution being used from tissue samples for all the microsatellite markers. In
view of this, we used a total of 125 tissue and blood samples from tissue repository of Wildlife
Forensic Cell, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun to use for establishment of reference baseline
data for further analyses. We amplified 12 microsatellite loci (EMU3, EMU4, EMU6, EMU7,
EMU9, EMU10, EMU11, EMU12, EMU13, EMU14, EMU15 and EMU17) described by Kongrit
et al. (2008) upon 125 samples from all across the study area to identify the reference alleles in
each locus.
The allele sizes ranged from 94 bp to 169 bp and their frequency distribution has been shown
in Fig. 9.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 +ve -ve
15
Figure 9. Frequency distribution of alleles by locus in north-west Indian elephant population. Diameter of bubbles represent frequency of individual alleles. (No. of samples=125; No. of alleles=73).
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Loci
Allele size
n=73
Locus 1 Locus 2 Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus 5 Locus 6 Locus 7 Locus 8 Locus 9 Locus 10 Locus 11 Locus 12
16
4.5. Identification of sex: A duplex reaction consisting of primer pairs Y53C/Y53D (Fein and Lemay 1995) and
EdlF/EdlR (Gupta et al. 2006) was amplified using faecal DNA templates at an annealing
temperature of 55°C in five replicates. The resulting products were electrophoresed on 2%
agarose gel for sex identification. The mitochondrial D loop region (EdlF/EdlR: 137bp) amplified
in both males and females; Y chromosome specific fragment (Y53C/Y53D: 202bp) amplified
only in males (Fig. 10). Consensus identification was used to assign sex to DNA samples.
Figure 10. Duplex reactions electrophoresed on 2% agarose.
4.6. Assessment of crop raiding patterns of elephants and attitude of farmers towards crop depredation: Along the boundary of Rajaji National Park, we selected 34 locations which could be
broadly categorized into 6 zones: 1. Southern boundary of western RNP, 2. Northern boundary
adjacent to Lacchiwala forest range, 3. Part of northern boundary between Lacchiwala and
Barkot borest Ranges, 4. Northern boundary adjacent to Barkot forest Range, 5. Southern
boundary of eastern part of RNP and 6. Along river Ganges (Fig. 11).
Figure 11. Locations and zones in which the questionnaire survey was carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of farmers during January-February 2015.
17
We used a 28 point structured questionnaire survey (Appendix 1) in these 34 locations
interviewing 90 agriculture associated persons. A total of 35.6% percent of the interviewee were
illiterate, 29.9% and 31.1% received primary and education respectively, whereas 3.4% of the
respondents were graduate. 86.7% of the respondents reared cattle as an alternative source of
income.
4.6.1. Cropping pattern:
Out of total 11 combinations of 5 commercial crops cultivated in the area (paddy,
wheat, sugarcane, maize and mango), 8 combinations were practiced by more than 1 respondent
(Table 2). Mean number of crop raids reported during the questionnaire survey in these 8
combinations varied significantly from one another (χ2=141.83, df=7, p<0.01). Farmers
cultivating only sugarcane reported highest mean number of crop raids per year (107.5) followed
by the combination of sugarcane and wheat (96.44) (Fig. 12). The combination of paddy and
wheat encounter the least mean number of crop raid per year (19.55).
Table 2: Zone-wise distribution of number of responses to query regarding cropping pattern around Rajaji National Park during January-February 2015. Crop combinations Zones
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Sugarcane 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Wheat 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Wheat-Mango 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Wheat-Maize 6 0 1 0 0 0 7 Wheat-Sugarcane 6 3 1 0 0 0 10 Wheat-Sugarcane-Mango 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wheat-Sugarcane-Maize 4 1 0 0 1 0 6 Paddy-Wheat 2 1 1 6 0 17 27 Paddy-Wheat-Sugarcane 1 11 4 3 12 0 31 Paddy-Wheat-Sugarcane-Maize 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Paddy-Sugarcane 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 23 17 9 11 13 17 90
18
Figure 12. Mean number of annual crop raids in major cropping combinations based on questionnaire survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of farmers during January-February 2015.
4.6.2. Frequency of crop raids:
Average number of crop raids were 40 per year with responses varying from 2 to 150 raids
per year in their respective localities. Mean intensity of crop raids varied significantly between
the 6 sampled zones (χ2=84.14, df=5, p<0.01). Crop raiding intensity was highest at the southern
boundary of RNP followed by part of northern boundary proximate to Lacchiwala forest range
of Dehradun forest division (Fig. 13).
Figure 13. Zone-wise mean number of crop raids per year based on questionnaire survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of farmers during January-February 2015.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Crop Combination
Mean no. of crop raids per year
Sugarcane Wheat Wheat Wheat Wheat Wheat Paddy Paddy Mango Maize Sugarcane Sugarcane Wheat. Wheat
Maize Sugarcane
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6
Zones
Mean no. of crop raids per year n=90
n=90
19
4.6.3. Crop maturity during raid:
In order to detect any patterns of raids related to maturity of the crop, we enquired the
respondents regarding growth stages of crops being raided. For paddy, 58.6% respondents
informed that the crop is raided after attaining maturity. According to 74.7% of wheat farmers,
the crop fields were raided since the crop were semi-mature. A total of 58% of sugarcane farmers
responded that the crops were raided right from immature stage just after the stalks could be
grabbed by elephants by their trunks. Maize crops were reported to be raided by 66.7%
respondents when the crops are semi-mature (Fig. 14).
Figure 14. Percent responses to the maturity of crop when raided by elephants based on questionnaire survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of farmers during January-February 2015.
4.6.4. Major seasons of crop raiding and time of raid:
To identify temporal patterns of crop raiding, the respondents were asked to identify
major seasons of crop raiding and the time of the day the raids are most frequent. Of the 90
respondents, 65.6% concurred that crop raiding was most frequent in winters while 21.1% and
13.3% interviewee responded that the season with most frequent crop raids were summer and
monsoon respectively (Fig. 15). When asked about the time of raid, 64.5% respondents said that
raids take place between 9 pm to 12 am, followed by 33.3% saying between 7 pm to 9 pm and
2.2% respondents saying the raids take place between 12 am to 5 pm (Fig. 16).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Paddy Wheat Sugarcane Maize
Immature Semi‐mature Mature
% Responses
n=90
20
Figure 15. Percent responses to season during which crop raiding is most frequent based on questionnaire survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of farmers during January-February 2015. .
Figure 16. Percent responses to time during which crop raiding is most frequent based on questionnaire survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of farmers during January-February 2015. .
4.6.5. Spatial patterns of crop raiding: distances of raided settlements from Rajaji National Park
boundary:
We developed an index for quantifying number of raids and percentage crop loss per
year together henceforth termed as Raid Index (RI=fraction of maximum number of crop raids
per year × fraction of maximum percentage loss of crop per year × 100). We calculated mean
Raid Index for each of the 34 settlements surveyed and plotted them against distance of the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Winter Summer Monsoon
Major seasons of crop raiding
% responses
n=90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1900 to 2100 2101 to 0000 0001 to 0500
% responses
Time of raid, hours
n=90
21
settlement from Rajaji National Park boundary (Fig. 17).
Figure 17. Raid Index plotted against distance of the settlements surveyed based on questionnaire survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of farmers during January-February 2015.
We found that 85.3% settlements (N=34) under crop raiding are within 1 km from the
park boundary whereas 64.7% of the settlements were less than 500 m from the boundary.
There was only 1 (2.9%) occasion where a settlement with Raid Index greater than 10 was
more than 1 km away from the boundary.
Therefore, we suggest that higher patrolling efforts may be made within 1 km from Rajaji
National Park boundary which lie under greater risk of crop raiding by elephants.
4.6.6. Attitude of the respondents towards crop raiding elephants:
We asked the respondents whether they thought elephants were the major cause of crop
damage. Eighty per cent of the respondents answered in positive while 20% said that other
animals like nilgai, wild pig, sambar, chital, macaque and parakeet chiefly harmed their crops
(Fig. 18). A total of 96.7% of interviewee considered crop raiding elephants were threat to their
personal safety (Fig. 19). Despite the risk of crop loss and insecurity regarding personal safety,
when asked whether wild elephants should be protected 91.1% of the respondents replied in
positive (Fig. 20). They reasons they provided for their opinion were categorised as 84.4% of
the interviewee saying that elephants should be protected as forests are their natural habitat
though their movement to crop fields must be restricted. Elephants were treated as deity by 4.4%
of the respondents and hence they opined for protection of elephants. Two respondents (2.2%)
thought that both forests and wildlife were government properties and harming them might cause
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Raid index
n=34
Distance from RNP boundary, meters
22
heavy penalties. Nine percent respondents who opined that elephant should not be protected
gave the reason that elephants cause economic and emotional loss to them through conflicts (Fig.
21).
Figure 18. Percent responses to whether crop raiding elephants are major causes of crop damage
based on questionnaire survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of
farmers during January-February 2015.
Figure 19. Percent responses to whether crop raiding elephants are threats to personal safety
based on questionnaire survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of
farmers during January-February 2015.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No Yes
% responses
Whether crop raiding elephants are major causes of crop damage
n=90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No Yes
% responses
Whether crop raiding elephants are threats to personal safety
n=90
23
Figure 20. Percent responses to whether elephants should be protected based on questionnaire
survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of farmers during January-
February 2015.
Figure 21. Responses to the reasons for which elephants should/ should not be protected
based on questionnaire survey carried out to assess extent of crop damage and perception of
farmers during January-February 2015.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No Yes
Whether elephants should be protected
% responses
n=90
84%
5%
2%
9%
Elephants should be protected because forests are their natural habitat
Elephants should be protected because elephants are considered as deity
Elephants should be protected because forests and wildlife are goventment property
Elephants should not be protected because of economic and emotional loss
n=90
24
5. REFERENCES:
Archie, E.A. and Chiyo, P.I. 2012. Elephant behaviour and conservation: social relationships,
the effects of poaching, and genetic tools for management. Molecular Ecology. 21, 765-
778.
Avise, J.C. 1995. Mitochondrial DNA Polymorphism and a connection between genetics and
demography of relevance to conservation. Conservation Biology. 9, 686-690.
Ball, M. C., R. Pither, M. Manseau, J. Clark, S. D. Petersen, S. Kingston, N. Morrill, and P.
Wilson. 2007. Characterization of target nuclear DNA from faeces reduces technical
issues associated with the assumptions of low-quality and quantity template.
Conservation Genetics. 8, 577-586.
Bipin, C.M. 2010. Human elephant conflict: impact of land cover changes along the Western
Ghats in Karnataka. Master’s thesis, National Centre for Biological Sciences.
Bangalore, India.
Bist, S.S. 2002. An overview of elephant conservation in India. The Indian Forester. 128,
121–136.
Chakraborty, S., Boominathan, D., Desai, A.A. and Vidya, T.N.C. 2014 Using genetic analysis
to estimate population size, sex ratio, and social organization in an Asian elephant
population in conflict with humans in Alur, southern India. Conservation Genetics. 15(4),
897-907.
Chiyo, P.I. and Cochrane, E.P. 2005. Population structure and behaviour of crop-raiding
elephants in Kibale National Park, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology. 43, 233–241.
Chiyo, P.I., Lee, P.C., Moss, C.J., Archie, E.A., Hollister-Smith, J.A. and Alberts, S.C.
2011b. No risk, no gain: effects of crop raiding and genetic diversity on body size in
male elephants. Behavioral Ecology. 22(3), 552-558.
Chiyo, P.I., Moss, C.J., Archie, E.A., Hollister-Smith, J.A. and Alberts, S.C. 2011a. Using
molecular and observational techniques to estimate the number and raiding patterns of
crop-raiding elephants. Journal of Applied Ecology. 48, 788–796.
Choudhury, A., Lahiri Choudhury, D.K., Desai, A., Duckworth, J.W., Easa, P.S., Johnsingh,
A.J.T., Fernando, P., Hedges, S., Gunawardena, M., Kurt, F., Karanth, U., Lister, A.,
Menon, V., Riddle, H., Rübel, A. and Wikramanayake, E. 2008. Elephas maximus. In:
IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 20 January 2012.
Datta Roy, A. 2003. Assessment of human-elephant conflicts in Jalpaiguri district of West
Bengal in relation to land-use patterns. Master’s thesis, Wildlife Institute of India,
25
Dehradun, India.
Fernando, P., Vidya, T.N.C., Payne, J., Stuewe, M., Davison, G., Alfred, R.J., Andau, P.,
Bosi, E., Kilbourn, A. and Melnick, D.J. 2003 DNA analysis indicates that Asian
elephants are native to Borneo and are therefore a high priority for conservation. PloS
Biology. 1, 110-115.
Fernando, P., Vidya, T.N.C., Rajapakse, C., Dangolla, A., Melnick, D.J. 2003. Reliable
noninvasive genotyping: fantasy or reality? Journal of Heredity. 94(2), 115-123.
Frankham, R. 1996. Relationship of genetic variation to population size in wildlife.
Conservation Biology. 10, 1500–1508.
Johansson, M., Primmer, C.R., Sahlsten, J. and Merilä, J. 2005. The influence of landscape
structure on occurrence, abundance and genetic diversity of the common frog, Rana
temporaria. Global Change Biology. 11, 1664–1679.
Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1993. Elephant corridors in Uttar Pradesh, India. Gajah. 11, 43-47.
Johnsingh, A.J.T. and Joshua, J. 1994. Conserving Rajaji and Corbett National Parks – the
elephant as a flagship species. Oryx. 28(2), 135-140.
Joshi. R. and Singh, R. 2008. Feeding behaviour of wild Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus)
in the Rajaji National Park. Journal of American Science. 4(2), 34-48.
Karanth, K. U. and Madhusudan, M.D. 2002. Mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in southern
Asia. In: Terbogh, J., Van Schaik, C.P., Rao, M., and Davenport L.C. (Eds.) Making
parks work; Identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropics. pp. 250-264.
Island Press, Covelo, California.
Kongrit, C., Siripunkaw, C., Brockelman, W.Y., Akkarapatumwong, V., Wright, T.F., Eggert,
L.S. 2008. Isolation and characterization of dinucleotide microsatellite loci in the Asian
elephant (Elephas maximus). Molecular Ecology Resources. 8(1), 175-177.
Rangarajan, M., Desai, A., Sukumar, R., Easa, P.S., Menon, V., Vincent, S., Ganguly, S.,
Talukdar, B.K., Singh, B., Mudappa, D., Chowdhary, S. and Prasad, A.N. 2010. Securing
the future for elephants in India – the report of the elephant task force. Ministry
of Environment and Forest, Government of India.
Sitati, N.W., Walpole, M.J., Smith, R.J. and Leader-Williams, N. 2003. Predicting spatial
aspects of human–elephant conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 667–677.
Sukumar, R. 1990. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. II. Feeding habits and
crop raiding patterns. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 6, 33-53.
Sukumar, R. 1994. Wildlife-human conflict in India: an ecological and social perspective. In:
Guha, R. (Ed.) Social Ecology, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. pp. 303-317.
26
Sukumar, R. 2006. A brief review of the status, distribution and biology of wild Asian
elephants Elephas maximus. International Zoo Yearbook. 40, 1-8.
Vidya, T.N.C. and Sukumar, R. 2005a. Social organization of the Asian elephant (Elephas
maximus) in southern India inferred from microsatellite DNA. Journal of Ethology. 23
(2), 205-210.
Vidya, T.N.C. and Sukumar, R. 2005b. Amplification success and feasibility of using
microsatellite loci amplified from dung to population genetic studies of the Asian
elephant (Elephas maximus). Current Science. 88(3), 489-492.
Williams, A.C., Johnsingh, A.J.T. and Krausman, P.R. 2001. Elephant-human conflicts in
Rajaji National Park, northwestern India. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29(4). 1097-1104.
Wright, S. 1951. The genetic structure of populations. Annals of Eugenics. 15, 323–354.
Yeh, F.C., Yang, R.C. and Boyle, T. 1997. POPGENE, Version 1.21: A Microsoft
window- based freeware for population genetic analysis.
Young, A.G., Brown, A.D.H., Murray, B.G., Thrall, P.H. and Miller, T.H. 2000. Genetic
erosion, restricted mating and reduced viability in fragmented populations of the
endangered grassland herb Rutidosis leptorrynchoides, in: Young, A.G. and Clarke,
G.M. (Eds.) Genetics, Demography and Viability of Fragmented Populations.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 335–359.
APPENDIX – 1
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSING PERCEPTIONS REGARDING CROP RAIDING BY ELEPHANTS
1. Name of respondent: (Land owner/ Employee)
2. Age:
3. Education: None/ Primary /Secondary/ Graduate/ >Graduate
4. Size of household: (Adult: Children: )
5. Area of agricultural land held (approx.):
6. Major sources of income other than farming: Cattle rearing/Business/Others (Specify):
7. Usually cultivated crop: Paddy/Wheat/Sugarcane/ Maize/ Groundnut/ Others (Specify):
8. Usual number/ frequency of crop raids by elephants per year in the settlement:
9. Name of crop raided: Paddy/Wheat/Sugarcane/ Maize/ Others (Specify):
10. Currently cultivated crop: Paddy/Wheat/Sugarcane/ Maize/ Others (Specify):
11. Number/ frequency of crop raids during current cultivation in the settlement:
12. Name of crop raided in recent weeks: Paddy/Wheat/Sugarcane/ Maize/ Others (Specify):
13. Maturity of crop during raid in general:
Paddy Immature/ Semi-mature/ Mature Wheat Immature/ Semi-mature/ Mature Sugarcane Immature/ Semi-mature/ Mature Maize Immature/ Semi-mature/ Mature Others (Specify)
Immature/ Semi-mature/ Mature
14. Months during which crop raiding is most frequent:
15. Time of crop raids: Early evening (1900-2100)/ Late evening (2100-0000)/ Night (0000-0500)/ Other (Specify):
16. Herd size during raids: 1/ 2-4/ 5-7/ 7-9/ >9
17. Investment in farming per year: Rs.
18. Loss due to crop raiding by elephants per year: Rs.
Sl. No.: Name of Settlement: Date: / /201 No. of resident families:
Name of interviewer: Coordinates: ° ´ ´´N ° ´ ´´E Time: AM/PM
Signature of the interviewer:
Patterns of spatial and temporal habitat occupancy in relation to crop raiding behaviour and genetic variation of free-ranging Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in north-west India using non-invasive genetic sampling
19. Method(s) used for preventing/mitigating elephant invasion: Sound/ Fire/ Flashing torchlights/ Stone pelting/ Trenches/ Walls/ Barbed or razor wire/ Others (Specify):
20. Whether the method/s is/are effective: Highly/ Moderately/ Scarcely/ Not effective
21. Investment in protection of crop/deterring elephants: Rs.
22. Administrative action for mitigating crop raiding: None/ Compensation (Amount: ) / Deterrent (Method/s: )/ Sensitization and education
23. Others methods that should be employed to control crop raiding in respondent’s opinion:
24. Other forms of elephant-human conflict present in vicinity: Human death/ Destruction of property/ Retaliatory killing of elephants/ Others (Specify):
25. Whether the respondent considers wild elephants to be pests and major cause of crop damage: No/ Yes
26. Whether the respondent considers wild elephants to be significant threat to personal safety: No/ Yes
27. Whether the respondent think that elephants should be protected: No/ Yes (Reasons):
28. Other animals involved in crop raiding in vicinity: Nilgai/ Wild Pig/ Sambar/ Chital/ Parakeet/ Macaque
