Technical ReportPDF Available

Panthera tigris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015

Authors:
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ÊÊÊISSN 2307-8235 (online)
ÊÊÊIUCN 2008: T15955A50659951
Panthera tigris, Tiger
Assessment by: Goodrich, J., Lynam, A., Miquelle, D., Wibisono, H., Kawanishi,
K., Pattanavibool, A., Htun, S., Tempa, T., Karki, J., Jhala, Y. & Karanth, U.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: Goodrich, J., Lynam, A., Miquelle, D., Wibisono, H., Kawanishi, K., Pattanavibool, A., Htun,
S., Tempa, T., Karki, J., Jhala, Y. & Karanth, U. 2015. Panthera tigris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2015: e.T15955A50659951. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-
2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
Copyright: © 2015 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: BirdLife
International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Felidae
Taxon Name:ÊÊPanthera tigris (Linnaeus, 1758)
Synonym(s):
Felis tigris Linnaeus, 1758
Regional Assessments:
Mediterranean
Infra-specific Taxa Assessed:
Panthera tigris ssp. altaica
Panthera tigris ssp. amoyensis
Panthera tigris ssp. balica
Panthera tigris ssp. corbetti
Panthera tigris ssp. jacksoni
Panthera tigris ssp. sondaica
Panthera tigris ssp. sumatrae
Panthera tigris ssp. tigris
Panthera tigris ssp. virgata
Common Name(s):
• English: Tiger
• French: Tigre
Taxonomic Source(s):
Luo, S.J., Kim, J.H., Johnson, W.E., Van Der Walt, J., Martenson, J., Yuhki, N., Miquelle, D.G., Uphyrkina,
O., Goodrich, J.M., Quigley, H., Tilson, R., Brady, G., Martelli, P., Subramaniam, V., Mcdougal, C., Hean, S.,
Huang, S.Q., Pan, W., Karanth, U.K., Sunquist, M., Smith, J.L.D. and O'Brien, S.J. 2004. Phylogeography
and genetic ancestry of tigers (Panthera tigris). PLoS Biology 2: 2275-2293.
Taxonomic Notes:
Taxonomy is currently under review by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group. We currently follow Luo et al.
(2004), who confirmed the division of Tiger into six extant subspecies on the basis of distinctive
molecular markers:
Amur Tiger P. t. altaica: Russian Far East and northeastern China
Northern Indochinese Tiger P. t. corbetti: Indochina north of the Malayan Peninsula
Malayan Tiger P. t. jacksoni: Peninsular Malaysia
Sumatran Tiger P. t. sumatrae: Sumatra
Bengal Tiger P. t. tigris: Indian sub-continent
South China Tiger P. t. amoyensis (although this subspecies has not been directly observed in the wild
since the 1970s and is possibly extinct)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
1
Three subspecies previously recognized on the basis of morphology are extinct:
Bali Tiger P. t. balica Schwarz, 1912: Bali
Javan Tiger P. t. sondaica (Temminck, 1844): Java
Caspian Tiger P. t. virgata (Illiger, 1815): dry river valleys of the Takla Makan, western slopes of the
Tianshan mountains, Amudarya and Syrdarya river valleys, shores of the Caspian sea, Elburz mountains,
eastern Turkey, Tigris and Euphrates river valleys.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria: Endangered A2abcd; C1 ver 3.1
Year Published: 2015
Date Assessed: April 20, 2014
Justification:
The Tiger is listed as Endangered under criterion A2abcd. Comparing a breeding recent range estimate
(42 “source sites” totalling 90,000 km² : Walston et al. 2010b) to a 2006 total range estimate (1.1 million
km² : Dinerstein et al. 2007) suggests a range decline much greater than 50% over the last three
generations (7 x 3 = 21 years). As per IUCN guidelines (Nowell et al. 2007, IUCN 2013), we calculated
generation length at seven years based on approximate age of maturity (four years) plus half the length
of the reproductive lifespan (six years) (based on Smith and McDougal 1991 and unpublished
information). This decline continues and at least two of the source populations listed in Walston et al.
(2010b) have apparently been lost (one from Lao PDR and one from Thailand). In 2006, it was believed
that breeding populations existed in 13 countries, but now known breeding Tiger populations occur only
in eight (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Thailand and Russia).
In 1998, the global Tiger population was estimated at 5,000 to 7,000 Tigers (Seidensticker et al. 1999). A
comparison of these population estimates of the 1990s (many with little scientific rigour) to similar
current ones (many of better quality; see Table 1 in attached Supporting Material) suggests a decline of
about 50% (taking the upper bound of 7,000 as the number of mature individuals in 1993, using a
precautionary approach, declining to approximately 3,500 in 2014), but differences in methodologies
and accuracy make such comparisons uncertain. This declining trend is likely to persist in the face of
continuing threats such as direct poaching, prey depletion and habitat degradation which continue in all
range states. Although several sites in India and Nepal have indeed reported recent recoveries,
population reductions may not be reversible in other areas where Tiger habitat itself has been lost.
Given the uncertainties about future declines, criterion A4bcd is no longer used.
The Tiger is also listed as Endangered under criterion C1 because the population of mature individuals
may be fewer than 2,500 individuals. Walston et al. 2010a estimated 2,154 tigers in 42 protected source
sites where there is evidence of breeding (two populations are since known to have been lost, as
described above), and the numbers in Table 1 (see Supporting material) could be overestimated.
Generally Tiger status outside the source sites is poor and large breeding populations are unlikely to
exist. To ensure tiger persistence, large population sizes (implying highest possible densities) and high
survival rates of breeding adult females are critical. Although well-protected tiger populations may
achieve recruitment rates that can sustain annual losses from mortality and emigration of 20% or more
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
2
(Karanth et al. 2006), some theoretical models suggest declines to extinction when annual mortality of
breeding females exceeds 15% (Chapron et al. 2008). Population declines in recent years have been
most pronounced outside protected areas (Walston et al. 2010b). For the purposes of Red List
assessment, the estimated population in Source Sites is a good proxy for the breeding population of
adult Tigers. This population has declined by over 20% during the last two generations (14 years); the
decline continues and may not be reversible in all sites.
Previously, Tigers were also listed under criterion C2a(i), but we have removed this criterion because the
population in the Western Ghats in India has increased to >250 adults (Karanth unpublished data).
Other subpopulations in Terai, Central India, and Russia may also have >250 adults (Karanth et al. 2010).
See attached Supporting Material for alternative depictions of range and population details.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2011 – Endangered (EN)
2010 – Endangered (EN)
2008 – Endangered (EN)
2002 – Endangered (EN)
1996 – Endangered (EN)
1994 – Endangered (E)
1990 – Endangered (E)
1988 – Endangered (E)
1986 – Endangered (E)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
The Tiger once ranged widely across Asia, from Turkey in the west to the eastern coast of Russia (Nowell
and Jackson 1996). Over the past 100 years Tigers have disappeared from southwest and central Asia,
from two Indonesian islands (Java and Bali) and from large areas of Southeast and Eastern Asia. Tigers
inhabit less than 6% of their historic range (Sanderson et al. 2006, Walston et al. 2010b), with a 42%
decline since 2006. Breeding populations of Tigers are currently found in eight range states: Bangladesh,
Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Russia, and Thailand. There is evidence of breeding in China
and Myanmar between 2009 and 2014, though these populations are likely dependent on immigration
from neighbouring countries. Tigers may still persist in North Korea, although there has been no recent
confirmed evidence.
In 1994, the first comprehensive assessment to delineate Tiger range was carried out (Dinerstein et al.
1997). Priority areas for Tiger conservation were estimated to total 1.64 million km² in 159 Tiger
Conservation Units (TCUs), roughly equivalent to discrete meta-populations, not including Russia (later
estimated at 270,0000 km²: Sanderson et al. 2006) and China. While this was generally considered
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
3
representative of current distribution, Tiger presence was confirmed in just 47% the TCUs, and 89%
were scored as undergoing medium to high levels of poaching of Tigers and their prey.
This exercise was revised and updated ten years later, and in delineating Tiger Conservation Landscapes
(TCLs), greater emphasis was placed on actual records of Tiger presence and breeding (Sanderson et al.
2006). TCLs were defined as areas where there is sufficient habitat to conserve at least five Tigers, and
Tigers have been confirmed to occur in the past decade. Tiger range was estimated at 1.1 million km² in
76 TCLs (again, roughly equivalent to discrete meta-populations). This represented a 41% decline from
the range described a decade earlier (in South and Southeast Asia, a drop from 1.55 million km² to
914,000 km²: Sanderson et al. 2006: 63), attributed primarily to poaching pressure (Dinerstein et al.
2007). Habitat loss due to deforestation was also to blame, notable particularly in Sumatra and
Myanmar (Wikramanayake et al. 2010). In India, landscapes with Tigers found to be much smaller and
more fragmented than in the original assessment (Sanderson et al. 2006: 63 and Figure 4.12).
Records of Tigers were collected over a ten-year period (1995–2004), a period which may have been too
liberal for places like Cambodia which underwent a sharp rise in poaching pressure in the 1990s
(Sanderson et al. 2006: Appendix 6). While 53% of the TCU survey respondents reported evidence of
Tiger breeding in the time period 1995–2004, out of over 2,500 point records collected in 2005, just 8%
had confirmed evidence of breeding Tigers (Sanderson et al. 2006: 11-17). Large areas of habitat were
defined as Tiger landscapes based on suitability, but given data paucity on Tiger presence there were
often few records of breeding and actual Tiger occupancy to substantiate these (Sanderson et al. 2006:
Figures 2.3 and 4.8).
A review of land management within Tiger Conservation Landscapes described the TCLs as “potential
habitat for Tigers” and found only 21% of their area to be legally protected. Management effectiveness
was generally poor in the protected areas, with regulatory, budgetary and enforcement constraints, and
hunting cited as the main threat. Significant portions of the TCLs are designated concessions for
resource extraction (timber, oil and gas, minerals, etc.) (Forrest et al. 2011).
Tiger range was revisited again in 2009, by which time the extent of the Tiger’s range collapse had
become evident. “Vast areas of Southeast Asia [were] recently found to be void of Tigers and depleted
of prey by hunters” (Walston et al. 2010a: 5). The exercise used a different methodology to prioritize
areas for Tiger conservation. Source Sites were defined as areas with confirmed current presence of
Tigers and evidence of breeding, population estimates of >25 breeding females, legal protection, and
embedded in a larger habitat landscape with the potential to hold >50 breeding females. An extensive
review of scientific literature as well as correspondence with Tiger scientists and protected area
managers resulted in the identification of just 42 source sites totalling approximately 90,000 km². Many
Southeast Asian countries, previously considered to have large areas with Tigers, were found, on the
basis of extensive survey effort over the past decade or more, to have no healthy breeding populations.
Since this publication, Lao PDR has lost its only source site, but Bhutan, originally listed as a country not
containing source sites, has documented breeding populations. [See Figures 1 and 2 in supplementary
material].
The map for this effort (Figure 1 in supplementary material) differentiates areas where breeding has
been detected in the past five years (2009-2014), where Tigers, but no breeding have been detected in
the past five years, areas surveyed where no Tigers were detected and areas not surveyed. Data include
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
4
camera trap photos, DNA, and observations of Tigers and Tiger sign detected during scientific surveys.
Unsurveyed areas were excluded from Tiger range. Figure 2 (attached Supporting Material) documents
a 42% range decline since 2006, reflecting both real decline and improved knowledge from new and
better surveys.
For further information about this species, see Supplementary Material.
Country Occurrence:
Native: Bangladesh; Bhutan; China (Anhui - Regionally Extinct, Beijing - Regionally Extinct, Chongqing -
Regionally Extinct, Fujian - Possibly Extinct, Guangdong - Possibly Extinct, Guangxi - Regionally Extinct,
Guizhou - Regionally Extinct, Hebei - Regionally Extinct, Heilongjiang, Henan - Regionally Extinct, Hubei -
Regionally Extinct, Hunan - Possibly Extinct, Jiangsu - Regionally Extinct, Jiangxi - Possibly Extinct, Jilin,
Liaoning - Regionally Extinct, Shaanxi - Possibly Extinct, Shandong - Regionally Extinct, Shanghai -
Regionally Extinct, Shanxi - Regionally Extinct, Sichuan - Regionally Extinct, Tianjin - Regionally Extinct,
Tibet [or Xizang], Xinjiang - Regionally Extinct, Yunnan, Zhejiang - Possibly Extinct); India; Indonesia (Bali
- Regionally Extinct, Jawa - Regionally Extinct, Sumatera); Lao People's Democratic Republic; Malaysia
(Peninsular Malaysia); Myanmar; Nepal; Russian Federation; Thailand
Possibly extinct: Cambodia; Korea, Democratic People's Republic of; Viet Nam
Regionally extinct: Afghanistan; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Pakistan; Singapore;
Tajikistan; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Uzbekistan
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
5
Distribution Map
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
6
Population
The thirteen Tiger Range Countries came together in an unprecedented pledge to double the world’s
Tiger population by 2022, the next Year of the Tiger on the Asian lunar calendar, with a goal of achieving
at least 6,000 Tigers. This figure was based on a baseline global population of 3,200, agreed upon at a
preparatory workshop held in Kathmandu, Nepal in October 2009; 3,200 Tigers was the IUCN Red List
population estimate at that time. Since then, Tiger Range Countries have adjusted their baseline
national Tiger estimates, finalized in the Global Tiger Recovery Program adopted at the International
Tiger Forum in St Petersburg, Russia in November 2010 (GTRP 2010).
The global Tiger estimate published in the 2010 Red List assessment of 2,154 tigers was an updated
version of the estimate of Tiger numbers in source sites (Walston et al. 2010a). This was not a complete
estimate of global Tiger numbers (for example, most Amur Tigers in Russia are found in unprotected
areas), but justified because Tiger status outside the source sites is generally poor and poorly known.
IUCN Guidelines (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2010) define population as the number of
mature individuals, defined as “individuals known, estimated or inferred to be capable of reproduction.
While in general this refers to all reproductive-age adults in the population, the Guidelines also “stress
that the intention of the definition of mature individuals is to allow the estimate of the number of
mature individuals to take account of all the factors that may make a taxon more vulnerable than
otherwise might be expected.” Tigers require large populations to persist, and the survival rate of
breeding adult females is a key parameter, with models suggesting population declines when mortality
of breeding females rises over 15% (Chapron et al. 2008). Population declines in recent years have been
most pronounced outside protected areas (Walston et al. 2010b). The IUCN Guidelines advise that
“mature individuals that will never produce new recruits should not be counted.” Thus, for the purposes
of the Red List assessment in 2010, the estimated population in the Source Sites was used as a proxy for
the breeding population of adult Tigers.
Due to extensive surveys using improved methodologies since this analysis, our understanding of tiger
distribution and numbers is much improved, e.g., extensive camera trapping in Bhutan has
demonstrated significant populations. Further, Walston et al. (2010a) ignored some important Tiger
areas, e.g., thousands of square kilometres in Kerinci and Leuser National Parks known to contain
breeding Tiger populations. Hence, the current estimate of 3,159 Tigers (Table 1 in supplementary
material) is based on data collected in scientific surveys conducted over the past five years (i.e. since
2009). This is a minimum estimate because some important areas (e.g. the Russian Far East) did not
have current estimates. However, because of differences in methodology, this can by no means be
interpreted as an increase over the 2010 estimate of 2,154. Rather, it is a more complete counting.
While Tiger numbers have increased in some areas in India (e.g. Western Ghats, Central India, and
Corbett Landscapes in India), they have also declined in key areas, especially in mainland SE Asia (e.g.
Nam Et-Phou Louey in Lao PDR is no longer considered a potential source site).
In 1998, the global Tiger population was estimated, less rigorously, at 5,000 to 7,000 Tigers
(Seidensticker et al. 1999). Although to some extent the new numbers represent improved knowledge, it
is clear that there have been substantial population declines, with Tigers all but eliminated from much
of their recent forest range, particularly in Southeast Asia.
See the supplementary material for further information about national Tiger population estimates.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
7
For further information about this species, see Supplementary Material.
Current Population Trend:ÊÊDecreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
Tigers are found mainly in the forests of tropical Asia, although they historically occurred more widely in
drier and colder climes. One subspecies, the Amur Tiger P. t. altaica, persists in the Russian Far East.
Photos of Tigers up to 4,500 m have been obtained in Bhutan (Wang 2008).
Availability of a sufficient prey base of large ungulates is the Tiger's major habitat requirement: "wild
pigs and deer of various species are the two prey types that make up the bulk of the Tiger's diet, and in
general Tigers require a good population of these species in order to survive and reproduce" (Hayward
et al. 2012, Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Tigers need to kill 50-60 large prey animals per year (Karanth
et al. 2004, Miller et al. 2013). Tigers are opportunistic predators, however, and their diet includes birds,
fish, rodents, insects, amphibians, reptiles in addition to other mammals such as primates and
porcupines. Tigers can also take ungulate prey much larger than themselves, including large bovids
(Water Buffalo, Gaur, Banteng), elephants and rhinos (Nowell and Jackson 1996). However, like many
large carnivores, preferred prey are key to successful reproduction and are those species that are
approximately the same weight as Tigers themselves (Hayward et al. 2012).
Tigers are generally solitary, with adults maintaining exclusive territories, or home ranges. Adult female
home ranges seldom overlap, whereas male ranges typically overlap from 1–3 females, a common felid
pattern of social organization. Tiger home ranges are small where prey is abundant - e.g., female home
ranges in Chitwan averaged 20 km², while in the Russian Far East they are much larger at about 400 km²
(Goodrich et al. 2010, Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Similarly, reported Tiger densities range from a
maximum of 17-19 Tigers per 100 km² where prey are abundant (India's Kaziranga and Corbett National
Parks) to as low as 0.13–0.45 per 100 km² where prey is more thinly distributed, as in Russia's Sikhote
Alin Mountains (Jhala et al. 2011, Soutyrina et al. 2012).
Systems:ÊÊTerrestrial
Use and Trade (see Appendix for additional information)
In the early 1990s, it was feared that poaching of Tigers for the use of their bones in traditional Asian
medicine would drive the Tiger to extinction (Nowell 2000). Despite strong international action to
eliminate it, illegal trade persists (Nowell 2007). Tiger bone has long been considered to hold anti-
inflammatory properties, with some support from Chinese medical research, but many consider the
effect to be more psychological than pharmacological (Nowell and Xu 2007). Although all countries have
banned use and manufacture of Tiger bone, illegal production persists in several Asian countries,
especially in China, Malaysia, and Viet Nam (Nowell 2007). In China there are several operations
engaged in intensive breeding ("farming" of Tigers), with the captive population reportedly reaching
over 6,000. They are pressuring the government to allow them to produce Tiger products, and several
have already engaged in illegal production of Tiger bone wine. Market surveys indicate that medicinal
use of Tiger bone has decreased since China banned Tiger bone in 1993. Tiger farming perpetuates and
threatens to re-ignite consumer demand (Nowell and Xu 2007). In 2008 the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) adopted a Decision stating that “Tigers should not be bred for trade
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
8
in their parts and derivatives” (CITES 2008).
There are other illegal markets for Tiger products, especially skins, but also teeth and claws (particularly
in Sumatra: Ng and Nemora 2007), contributing to poaching pressure. But many Tigers are also killed by
people seeking to protect life and livestock. Conflict-killed Tigers can also feed into the illegal trade.
Many Tiger products in trade are faked, a legal "grey area" in several countries which also perpetuates
consumer demand (Nowell 2000).
Tiger poaching is driven by less by poverty and more by wealth (TRAFFIC 2008), which is putting
expensive illegal Tiger products within reach of a rapidly growing group of potential consumers. TRAFFIC
has documented rising levels of recent illegal trade within the Tiger range countries, with seizures and
confiscations in 2007–2009 averaging the equivalent of approximately 150 Tigers per year (Verheij et al.
2010). Interdictions represent just a fraction of the true level of illegal trade, indicating that Tigers are
gravely imperilled by black market demand.
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
Poaching for illegal trade in high-value Tiger products including skins, bones, meat and tonics is a
primary threat to Tigers, which has led to their recent disappearance from broad areas of otherwise
suitable habitat, and continues at unsustainable rates. That there are roughly one million square
kilometres of unoccupied Tiger habitat is a clear indication that poaching is the greatest threat to Tigers
range-wide.
Asia is a densely populated and rapidly developing region, bringing huge pressures to bear on the large
wild areas required for viable Tiger populations. Conversion of forest land to agriculture and silviculture,
commercial logging, and human settlement are the main drivers of Tiger habitat loss. With their
substantial dietary requirements, Tigers require a healthy large ungulate prey base, but these species
are also under heavy human subsistence hunting pressure and competition from domestic livestock.
Tiger attacks on livestock and people can lead to intolerance of Tigers by neighbouring communities and
presents an ongoing challenge to managers to build local support for Tiger conservation and can lead to
high rates of retaliatory killing of Tigers. In some areas there have been many human deaths - for
example, about 40 people were killed by Tigers in the Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh and
India 2000-2010 (Barlow et al. 2013).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
At a “Tiger Summit” held in St Petersburg, Russia in November 2010, the 13 Tiger Range Countries
adopted a Global Tiger Recovery Program (GTRP 2010). The goal is to effectively double the number of
wild Tigers by 2022 through actions to:
i) effectively preserve, manage, enhance and protect Tiger habitats;
ii) eradicate poaching, smuggling and illegal trade of Tigers, their parts and derivatives;
iii) cooperate in transboundary landscape management and in combating illegal trade;
iv) engage with indigenous and local communities;
v) increase the effectiveness of Tiger and habitat management; and
vi) restore Tigers to their former range.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
9
The Tiger Summit was attended by Heads of State including Russia, China, Lao PDR, Nepal and
Bangladesh, and represented significant government commitment to Tiger conservation.
The future of Tiger range depends upon the Asian governments creating effective Tiger landscapes by
conserving large areas of suitable habitat. Within these landscapes, the most urgent need is to first
secure the source sites—protected areas with viable Tiger populations—where most of the global Tiger
population is now clustered, and many of which are currently too threatened to deliver their potential
as the demographic sources for species recovery (Walston et al. 2010b).
Countries that do not currently support known breeding populations (Myanmar, Cambodia, Viet Nam
and Lao PDR) but still have large landscapes with suitable habitat, Tigers might still be recovered if
government commitment to Tigers, staff capacity for law enforcement and legal frameworks for Tiger
protection can be established (Lynam 2010), though reintroduction may be needed in some places.
Credits
Assessor(s): Goodrich, J., Lynam, A., Miquelle, D., Wibisono, H., Kawanishi, K., Pattanavibool,
A., Htun, S., Tempa, T., Karki, J., Jhala, Y. & Karanth, U.
Reviewer(s): Nowell, K., Hunter, L., Duckworth, J.W., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Lanz, T. &
Breitenmoser, U.
Contributor(s): Petracca, L., Pokharel, C., Dhakal, M., Samba Kumar, N., Pusparini, W., Hossain,
A.N.M., Rayan, MR, Gumal, MG, Clements, R., Habib, B., Chundawat, R.S., Ahmad
Khan, J., Sunarto, S., Wang, S.W., Nyhus, P. & Tilson, R.L.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
10
Bibliography
Barlow, A.C.D., Ahmad, I. and Smith, J.L.D. 2013. Profiling tigers (Panthera tigris) to formulate
management responses to human-killing in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Wildlife Biology in Practice 9:
30-39.
Chapron, G., Miquelle, D.G., Lambert, A., Goodrich, J.M., Legendre, S. and Clobert, J. 2008. The impact
on tigers of poaching versus prey depletion. Journal of Applied Ecology 45(6): 1667-1674.
CITES. 2008. Asian Big Cats. Decision 14.69. http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid14/14_65-72.shtml.
Collins, M., D’Arcy, L., Jeffers, K., Novalina, C., Pebatakusuma, E., Priatna, D. and Sakti, M. 2012. Camera
Trapping for Mammals in Berbak National Park, Jambi Province, Sumatra. ZSL Berbak Carbon Initiative,
Darwin Final Report, Appendix 4, Bogor.
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Wikramanayake, E., Ginsburg, J., Sanderson, E., Seidensticker, J., Forrest, J.,
Bryja, G., Heydlauff, A., Klenzendorf, S., Leimgruber, P., Mills, J., O'Brien, T. G., Shrestha, M., Simons, R.
and Songer, M. 2007. The fate of wild tigers. Bioscience 57(6): 508-514.
Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Robinson, J., Karanth, U., Rabinowitz, A., Olson, D., Mathew, T.,
Hedao, P., Connor, P., Hemley, G. and Bolze, D. 1997. A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas and
Actions for the Conservation of Tigers in the Wild. A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas and
Actions for the Conservation of Tigers in the Wild.
Forrest, J.L., Bomhard, B., Budiman, A., Coad, L., Cox, N., Dinerstein, E., Hammer, D., Huang, C., Huy, K.,
Kraft, R., Lysenko, I. and Magrath, W. 2011. Single-species conservation in a multiple-use landscape:
current protection of the tiger range. Animal Conservation 14(3): 283-294.
GON. 2013. Status of tiger and prey-base population in Nepal 2013. Government of Nepal, Ministry of
Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal..
Goodrich, J.M. 2012. Monitoring tigers in Nam Et – Phou Louey Protected Area, Lao PDR. Final report to
the U.S. Fish and Willdife Service Rhino Tiger Conservation Fund. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx,
New York, USA..
Goodrich J.M., Miquelle, D.G., Smirnov, E.N., Kerley, L.L., Quigley, H.B. and Hornocker, M.G. 2010. Spatial
structure of Amur (Siberian) tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) on Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Zapovednik,
Russia. Journal of Mammalogy 97: 737-748.
GTRP. 2010. Global Tiger Recovery Program, 2010-2022. Thirteen Tiger Range Countries and Partners of
the Global Tiger Initiative. World Bank, Washington DC.
Hayward, M.W., Jedrzejewski, W. and Jedrzewska, B. 2012. Prey preferences of the tiger Panthera tigris.
Journal of Zoology 286: 221-231.
IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 23 June 2015).
IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2010. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories
and Criteria. Version 8.1. Available at:
http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf..
Jhala, Y.V., Qureshi, Q. and Gopal, R. (eds). 2015. The Status of Tigers in India 2014. National Tiger
Conservation Authority, New Delhi & The Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradu.
Jhala, Y.V., Qureshi, Q. and Sinha, P.R. 2011. Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India. National
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
11
Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt of India and the Wildlife Institute of India, New Delhi and Dehra Dun,
India.
Karanth, K.U., Kumar, N.S., Nichols, J.D., Link, W.A. and Hines, J.E. 2004. Tigers and their prey: Predicting
carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 101: 4854-4858.
Khan, M.M.H. 2004. Ecology and Conservation of the Bengal Tiger in the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest
of Bangladesh. University of Cambridge, Department of Anatomy.
Luo, S.J., Kim, J.H., Johnson, W.E., Van Der Walt, J., Martenson, J., Yuhki, N., Miquelle, D.G., Uphyrkina,
O., Goodrich, J.M., Quigley, H., Tilson, R., Brady, G., Martelli, P., Subramaniam, V., Mcdougal, C., Hean, S.,
Huang, S.Q., Pan, W., Karanth, U.K., Sunquist, M., Smith, J.L.D. and O'Brien, S.J. 2004. Phylogeography
and genetic ancestry of tigers (Panthera tigris). PLoS Biology 2: 2275-2293.
Lynam, A.J. 2010. Securing a future for wild Indochinese tigers: Transforming tiger vacuums into tiger
source sites. Integrative Zoology 5: 324-334.
Miller, C.S., Hebblewhite, M., Petrunenko, Y.K.Seryodkin, I.V., Decesare, N.J., Goodrich, J.M. and
Miquelle, D.G. 2013. Estimating Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) kill rates and potential consumption
rates using global positioning system collars. Journal of Mammalogy 94: 845-855.
Miquelle, D.G., Pikunov, D.G., Dunishenko, Y.M., Aramilev, V.V., Nikolaev, I.G., Abramov, V.K., Smirnov,
E.N., Salkina,G.P., Seryodkin, I.V., Gaponov, V.V., Fomenko, P.V., Litvinov, M.N., Kostyria, A.V., Yudin, V.G.,
Korkisko, V.G. and Murzin, A.A. 2006. A Survey of Amur Tigers in the Russian Far East, 2004–2005: Final
Report; 2006. Wildlife Conservation Society Russia Program, Vladivostok, Russia.
Ng, J. and Nemora. 2007. Tiger trade revisited in Sumatra, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling
Jaya.
Nowell, K. 2000. Far from a cure: The tiger trade revisited. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
Nowell,K. 2007. Asian big cat conservation and trade control in selected range States: evaluating
implementation and effectiveness of CITES Recommendations. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
Nowell, K. and Jackson, P. 1996. Wild Cats. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Cat
Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Nowell, K. and Xu, Ling. 2007. Taming the tiger trade: China's markets for wild and captive tiger products
since the 1993 domestic trade ban. TRAFFIC East Asia, Hong Kong, China.
O’Kelly, H.J., Evans, T.D., Stokes, E.J., Clements, T.J., Dara, A., Gately, M., Menghor, N., Pollard, E.H.B.,
Soriyun, M. and Walston, J. 2012. Identifying Conservation Successes, Failures and Future Opportunities;
Assessing Recovery Potential of Wild Ungulates and Tigers in Eastern Cambodia. PLoS ONE 7(10):
e40482. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040482.
Sanderson, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Ginsberg, J., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Leimgruber, P., Songer,
M., Heydlauff, A., O'Brien, T., Bryja, G., Klenzendorf, S and Wikramanayake, E. 2006. Setting Priorities for
the Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005-2015. The Technical Assessment. WCS, WWF,
Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, New York and Washington, DC, USA.
Seidensticker J., Christie S. and Jackson, P. 1999. Preface. In: J. Seidensticker, S. Christie and P. Jackson
(eds), Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Soutyrina, S.V., Riley, M.D., Goodrich, J.M., Seryodkin, I.B. and Miquelle, D.G. 2012. A Population
Estimate of Amur Tigers Using Camera Traps. Dalnauka, Vladivostok, Russia [in Russian and English].
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
12
Sunarto, Kelly, M.J., Klenzendorf, S., Vaughan, M.R., Hutajulu, M.B. and Parakkasi, K. 2013. Threatened
predator on the equator: multi-point abundance estimates of the tiger Panthera tigris in central
Sumatra. Oryx 47: 211-220.
Sunquist, M. and Sunquist, F. 2002. Wild Cats of the World. University of Chicago Press.
TRAFFIC. 2008. What’s Driving the Wildlife Trade? A Review of Expert Opinion on Economic and Social
Drivers of the Wildlife Trade and Trade Control Efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR and Vietnam.
East Asia and Pacific Region Sustainable Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Verheij, P.M., Foley, K.E. and Engel, K. 2010. Reduced to skin and bones: An analysis of Tiger seizures
from 11 Tiger range countries (2000-2010). TRAFFIC International.
Walston, J., Karanth, K.U. and Stokes, E.J. 2010a. Avoiding the unthinkable: what will it cost to prevent
tigers becoming extinct in the wild? Wildlife Conservation Society, New York.
Walston, J., Robinson, J.G., Bennett, E.L., Breitenmoser, U., da Fonseca G.A.B., Goodrich, J., Gumal, M.,
Hunter, L., Johnson, A., Karanth, K.U., Leader-Williams, N., MacKinnon, K., Miquelle, D., Pattanavibool,
A., Poole, C., Rabinowitz, A., Smith, J.L.D., Stokes, E.J., Stuart, S.N., Vongkhamheng, C. and Wibisono, H.
2010. Bringing the Tiger Back from the Brink—The Six Percent Solution. PLoS Biology 8(9): e1000485.
Wang, S.W. 2008. Understanding ecological interactions among carnivores, ungulates and farmers in
Bhutan's Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park. Ph.D. Thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Wibisono, H. T., Figel, J. J., Arif, S. M., Ario, A., & Lubis, A. H. 2009. Assessing the Sumatran tiger Panthera
tigris sumatrae population in Batang Gadis National Park, a new protected area in Indonesia. Oryx 43:
634.
Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Seidensticker, J., Klenzendorf, S., Sanderson,
E.W., Simons, R., Heydlauff, A., Ginsberg, J., O'Brien, T., Leimgruber, P., Songer, M. and Bryja, G. 2010.
Roads to recovery or catastrophic loss: How will the next decade end for wild Tigers? Pp in R. In: R.
Tilson and P. Nyhus (eds), Tigers of the world: the science, politics and conservation of Panthera tigris,
pp. 493-505. Elsevier/Academic Press.
Citation
Goodrich, J., Lynam, A., Miquelle, D., Wibisono, H., Kawanishi, K., Pattanavibool, A., Htun, S., Tempa, T.,
Karki, J., Jhala, Y. & Karanth, U. 2015. Panthera tigris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:
e.T15955A50659951. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Supplementary Material, and for Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the
Red List website.
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
13
Habitat Season Suitability Major
Importance?
1. Forest -> 1.1. Forest - Boreal - Suitable Yes
1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate - Suitable Yes
1. Forest -> 1.5. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Suitable Yes
1. Forest -> 1.6. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland - Suitable Yes
1. Forest -> 1.7. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Mangrove Vegetation Above
High Tide Level
- Suitable Yes
1. Forest -> 1.9. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane - Marginal -
3. Shrubland -> 3.5. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Suitable Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.6. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Moist - Suitable Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.5. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Marginal -
4. Grassland -> 4.6. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Seasonally
Wet/Flooded
- Marginal -
Use and Trade
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
End Use Local National International
Food - human No Yes Yes
Medicine - human & veterinary No Yes Yes
Handicrafts, jewellery, etc. No Yes Yes
Pets/display animals, horticulture No Yes Yes
Establishing ex-situ production * No No No
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1.
Housing & urban areas
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.2.
Commercial & industrial areas
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.3.
Tourism & recreation areas
Ongoing - - -
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
14
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.1. Shifting
agriculture
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder
farming
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry
farming
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.2. Wood & pulp
plantations -> 2.2.1. Small-holder plantations
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.2. Wood & pulp
plantations -> 2.2.2. Agro-industry plantations
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming
& ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching or
farming
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming
& ranching -> 2.3.3. Agro-industry grazing, ranching
or farming
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.4. Marine &
freshwater aquaculture -> 2.4.3. Scale
Unknown/Unrecorded
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
3. Energy production & mining -> 3.2. Mining &
quarrying
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is
the target)
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
15
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.2. Unintentional effects
(species is not the target)
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.3. Persecution/control
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1.
Recreational activities
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.2. War, civil
unrest & military exercises
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire
suppression -> 7.1.3. Trend Unknown/Unrecorded
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water
management/use -> 7.2.11. Dams (size unknown)
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.2. Problematic native species
Ongoing - - -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
Systematic monitoring scheme: Yes
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
Area based regional management plan: Yes
In-Place Species Management
Harvest management plan: Yes
Subject to ex-situ conservation: Yes
In-Place Education
Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: Yes
Included in international legislation: Yes
Subject to any international management/trade controls: Yes
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
16
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
2. Land/water management -> 2.3. Habitat & natural process restoration
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.2. Trade management
3. Species management -> 3.2. Species recovery
3. Species management -> 3.3. Species re-introduction -> 3.3.1. Reintroduction
3. Species management -> 3.4. Ex-situ conservation -> 3.4.1. Captive breeding/artificial propagation
3. Species management -> 3.4. Ex-situ conservation -> 3.4.2. Genome resource bank
4. Education & awareness -> 4.1. Formal education
4. Education & awareness -> 4.2. Training
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.1. International level
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.2. National level
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.3. Sub-national level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.1. International level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.2. National level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.3. Sub-national level
6. Livelihood, economic & other incentives -> 6.1. Linked enterprises & livelihood alternatives
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
1. Research -> 1.6. Actions
2. Conservation Planning -> 2.1. Species Action/Recovery Plan
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
17
Research Needed
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 1184911
Number of Locations: 76
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
Upper elevation limit (m): 4500
Population
Number of mature individuals: 2154-3159
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Population severely fragmented: Yes
Habitats and Ecology
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes
Generation Length (years): 6.5-10
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
18
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ÊÊÊISSN 2307-8235 (online)
ÊÊÊIUCN 2008: T15955A50659951
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN
Red List Partners are: BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation
International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas
A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera tigris – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en
19

Supplementary resource (1)

... Currently, the total population size of jaguars (173,000 individuals 21 ) is estimated to be~50 times higher than that of tigers (3200-3500 individuals 22 ). Despite considerable differences in their conservation status, both feline species face similar threats, primarily in the form of habitat loss and poaching 16,18 . In this context, hydropower expansion has been identified as a potential key driver of habitat loss, and thus a threat to both jaguars 23 and tigers 22 , but the magnitude of this threat has not yet been examined. ...
... Both species further serve additional vital roles in the countries where they are found, as flagship species attracting ecotourists, and as umbrella species supporting critical ecosystem services 44 . Although jaguars and tigers are primarily affected by habitat loss and poaching 16,18 , here we show that hydropower development constitutes an important driver of such habitat loss. This elevates the overall importance of preserving terrestrial habitats required to sustain populations of apex predators. ...
... Measurements of habitat loss due to flooding. After cataloguing all dam information, we used the geographic coordinates provided by the source to overlap with the IUCN distribution of jaguars 16 and tigers 18 (Supplementary Fig. 3). We then summed the area of existing reservoirs within the species range. ...
Article
Full-text available
The rapid expansion of hydropower across tropical landscapes has caused extensive habitat loss and degradation, triggering biodiversity loss. Despite known risks to freshwater biodiversity, the flooding of terrestrial habitats caused by dam construction, and associated impacts on terrestrial biota, have been rarely considered. To help fill this knowledge gap, we quantified the habitat loss following inundation of hydropower reservoirs across the range of two iconic species, jaguars and tigers. To do so, we compiled existing and planned dams intersecting the distribution of these apex predators. We found 164 dams intersecting the jaguar range, in total flooding 25,397 km2. For tigers, we identified 421 dams, amounting to 13,750 km2. As hydropower infrastructure is projected to expand in the decades ahead, these values are expected to increase greatly, particularly within the distribution of jaguars where the number of dams will nearly quadruple (429 planned dams). Despite the relatively few dams (41) planned across the range of tigers, most will intersect priority conservation areas for this species. We recommend a more cautious pursuit of hydropower in topographically flat regions, to avoid extensive habitat flooding which has occurred in the Neotropics, and avoiding dam construction in priority conservation landscapes for tigers. Palmeirim and Gibson quantify the global habitat loss of jaguars and tigers due to existing and planned hydropower dams and relate these to published estimates of species densities from nearby regions. This analysis shows how dam construction intersects priority conservation areas for these apex predators.
... The global tiger population is approximately 3,200 with estimates of less than 2,500 mature individuals. Hence, tiger is listed as Endangered by the IUCN (Goodrich et al., 2015). ...
... The total number of large-bodied mammal genera that became extinct throughout the Pleistocene in Southeast Asia was equivalent to the extinctions only during the late Quaternary in North America (Louys, 2012). However, many extant species that persisted so well in the region over the past 1,000,000 years have now become threatened (Bleisch et al., 2008;Goodrich et al., 2015;Kamler et al., 2015;Stein et al., 2016;Traeholt et al., 2014). Hence, the study of the effects of the current climate change on species distribution alone may lead to a biased understanding of species responses to environmental changes. ...
... The distribution of the species' suitable habitats was expected to decrease by 81%, suggesting that tigers are at extremely high risk of disappearing in the next few decades. Tiger extinction is highly likely to occur given the current small populations of less than 3,200 individuals worldwide (Goodrich et al., 2015). Small fragmented areas in Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam will be the only suitable habitats for the species (Figure 3.4a). ...
Conference Paper
It is suggested climate change contributes considerably to global biodiversity loss. Southeast Asia, one of the world’s richest biodiversity hotspots, is predicted to lose most of its species by 2100. Hence, it is important to identify the key impact of environmental changes in order to develop more appropriate and effective conservation plans to mitigate species extinction risks. In this thesis, Species Distribution Modelling (SDM) techniques were used to predict potential species distributions in relation to 6 climatic variables. The effects of climate changes on large mammal distributions were examined across three time intervals: past (the last interglacial ~120,000 – 140,000 years before present), present (AD 1945 - present) and future (2050); while rates of species range shifts between the time intervals were also determined. It is found that large mammals are particularly vulnerable to climate change. The species will have to move 33 – 105 times faster than they once did in the past in order to search out suitable habitat. There is also evidence of niche conservatism and niche shift among the taxa. However, species niche shifts likely result from anthropogenic factors. Limited availability of species occurrence data in many parts of the world leads to an increased use of species range maps in research on species responses to changing environments. Predictions based on SDMs suggest that relying on a single data source may skew the species’ realistic threatened status and misguide conservation planning. The Zonation software was employed to evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) in Thailand under future warming climate and identify high priority areas. Currently, nearly 60% of high priority areas fall within the PAs. In the future, the conservation values of the PAs are expected to remain relatively unchanged. However, it is suggested that enhancing PAs connectivity in the northern part of the country may yield a high return on conservation investment. A deliberate and consistent conservation effort will also be needed to maintain the effectiveness of the existing PAs.
... International trade in all five tiger subspecies has been banned since 1987 (Abbott and Van Kooten, 2011). Yet, the global tiger population declined by about 50% from the 1990s to 2014 due to multiple factors (Goodrich et al., 2015). It is clear that the trade ban has failed to prevent tigers from being poached (Rasphone et al., 2019;Graham-Rowe, 2011), and the illegal tiger trade shows no sign of abating (McCoy, 2019;Indenbaum, 2018;Goodrich et al., 2015). ...
... Yet, the global tiger population declined by about 50% from the 1990s to 2014 due to multiple factors (Goodrich et al., 2015). It is clear that the trade ban has failed to prevent tigers from being poached (Rasphone et al., 2019;Graham-Rowe, 2011), and the illegal tiger trade shows no sign of abating (McCoy, 2019;Indenbaum, 2018;Goodrich et al., 2015). Poaching for illegal trade is the primary threat to wild tiger populations, while habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation are considered the driving force that facilitates poaching (EIA [Environmental Investigation Agency], 2017; Goodrich et al., 2015;Dinerstein et al., 2007;Lapointe et al., 2007;Nowell and Xu, 2007). ...
... It is clear that the trade ban has failed to prevent tigers from being poached (Rasphone et al., 2019;Graham-Rowe, 2011), and the illegal tiger trade shows no sign of abating (McCoy, 2019;Indenbaum, 2018;Goodrich et al., 2015). Poaching for illegal trade is the primary threat to wild tiger populations, while habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation are considered the driving force that facilitates poaching (EIA [Environmental Investigation Agency], 2017; Goodrich et al., 2015;Dinerstein et al., 2007;Lapointe et al., 2007;Nowell and Xu, 2007). Domestic trade in tiger bones and medicine from tiger bone was banned in China in 1993 (Dinerstein et al., 2007) and in Vietnam in 1994(CITES, 2008. ...
Article
Full-text available
Demand for tiger parts and products has fuelled the poaching of wild tigers. As the supply of wild tigers has become scarce, tiger farming has emerged as an alternative source and proliferated in several Asian countries with unclear implications of a legalized trade in farmed tigers on wild tiger demand. We conducted a choice experiment with 228 Vietnamese tiger bone glue consumers investigating their preferences and trade-offs for different attributes of their purchase choice, including legality, source, purity, and price. We calculated consumers' willingness to pay for each attribute level under the current trade ban and in a hypothetical legal trade. Consumers preferred and were willing to pay more for wild than farmed tiger glue and a higher proportion of tiger bone in the glue. Consumers also preferred legal over illegal sufficiently for most to switch from illegal wild to legal farmed tiger. Hence, a legal trade will shift preferences significantly towards farmed tiger glue from legal sources but will not eradicate demand for wild tigers, likely leading to the parallel operation of legal and illegal markets. We discuss the implications of the results for conserving wild tigers through efforts to manage demand in Vietnam.
... virgata) is believed to be extinct from Central Asia. It is known that in 1956, the tiger was shot in the south of Tajikistan (Sokolov, 1986:348) and the last record of appearance in the wild was in the early 1970s (Jackson and Nowell, 2011). Almost no data or recent confirmed records have been reported regarding the Dhole (Cuon alpinus) 5 which has disappeared from most of its historical habitat range including the Tien-Shan and the Pamir-Alai Mountains (Kamler et al. 2015). ...
Thesis
The study is devoted to the human-environmental relationships in the post-socialist period of Kyrgyzstan. It addresses the human-wildlife conflicts using the example of the Alai Valley in the south of the country. Environmental and climatic characteristics of this highland valley provide suitable conditions for pastoralism and serve as habitat for wildlife. In recent decades, the natural landscape of the region came under increasing international attention with regard to nature conservation, sustainable land management and development projects. Historically, pastoralism has played a significant role for the economy of Kyrgyzstan. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the collapse of state agricultural infrastructure facilities, veterinary care, loss of markets, and privatisation of the agricultural sector of the economy and other factors have led to a major downfall in the animal husbandry industry. The number of sheep and goats decreased from ten million in 1990 to four million in 2000. Nevertheless, pastoralism has considerable importance to the national economy and remains as the crucial income source for rural livelihoods in Kyrgyzstan. The post-socialist period of Kyrgyzstan has faced rapid socio-economic and political transformation which has resulted in changes not only to local livelihoods, but also in livestock husbandry, nature protection and wildlife management. In recent decades many pastoralists often complain about the increase in livestock depredation by wild predators. It is taking place despite the presence of state sponsored predator-control activity. From another side, there are public concerns about wildlife conservation. With the engagement of many environmental NGOs and mass-media, wildlife management issues have quickly become highly politicised in Kyrgyzstan. Becoming a Party to several global environmental conventions has increased the realisation of many projects funded by external donor organisations, and the implementation of their obligations for wildlife conservation, together, have substantially raised the profile of wildlife management in Kyrgyzstan at the international level. Moreover, since the independence of Kyrgyzstan, the territory of Protected Areas has increased by three times. Protected Areas are crucial to wildlife conservation and are promoted by the nature conservation community as a beneficial measure to the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts. Despite this fact, livestock depredation by wild predators generates conflicts and has become a serious conservation issue. The study aims to better understand human-wildlife interrelationships in connection with pastoralism, protected areas and wildlife management in Kyrgyzstan. Wildlife related conflicts are analysed to determine the status of livestock depredation and to explore its linkages with rural livelihoods and wildlife conservation concerns in the Republic. The project design emphasises different utilisation strategies for the same area of rangelands, including the provision of fodder resources, wildlife habitat area, livestock grazing, and other uses by humans. Additionally, the focus of this study is directed towards a historical aspect of the region in relation to the development processes in the Alai Valley and use of its natural resources.
... The semi-arboreal habit of marbled cats must be recognised, and as the cameras could only capture terrestrial presence, activity pattern could very well be misrepresented in this instance. (Kawanishi, 2015). That it is also an accessible area of unique natural highland forest contiguous with the Main Range and serving as a crucial forest connection within the Central Forest Spine makes its continued conservation and protection of utmost importance for Malaysia's biodiversity. ...
Article
Opportunistic camera trap survey in the vicinity of Fraser's Hill was carried out from December 2013 to 2016, where 14 cameras were deployed for a total trap effort of 5,419 days. Six species of Felidae were recorded, along with ten species of other Carnivora. Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) was the most abundant cat species, while larger species were possibly transiting the sample area, which was small. Felid activity was predominantly nocturnal except for marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata). The presence of a diverse range of felids and carnivores makes the continued conservation and protection of highland forest important for Malaysia.
... In 2010, global leaders committed to doubling global tiger numbers by 2022 at the Global Tiger Summer, St. Petersburg. With over 70% of the global tiger population, India is considered key for the success of Global Tiger Recovery Plan (Goodrich et al., 2015). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
Status of Tigers and prey in Valmiki Tiger Reserve
Article
Full-text available
Poaching and illegal trade are primary threats to tigers (Panthera tigris). Trade in tiger parts has been well documented in Asia. However, little is known about tiger parts entering the United States (US). We analyzed seizures of tiger parts trafficked through US ports of entry from 2003 to 2012 along with shipments that had been issued legal Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species import permits. We found 292 seizure incidents and 283 permitted imports over that 10-year period. The amount of tiger parts trafficked into the US illegally was larger than what has been previously reported. Most tiger parts entered the US legally and illegally for personal purposes; 81.8% of seized items were medicinal products. San Francisco, Dallas, and Atlanta were entry hotspots for illegal tiger imports which mainly entered the United States from China and Vietnam. Of the 65.8% of seized parts with a known origin, 99.5% originated from wild tigers. Since country of origin and source of many legally and illegally traded tiger parts was unknown, we recommend the use of forensic DNA analysis to address these knowledge gaps to focus conservation and enforcement efforts. Research should continue in the United States to adequately capture the global supply, demand, and trade of tiger parts.
Article
Land use change, agricultural and urban expansion, and anthropogenic climate change are the major drivers of biodiversity loss across the globe. Big cats (a casual term including species such as tigers, lions, mountain lions, jaguars, leopards, snow leopards, and cheetahs) are impacted by these global changes. As human settlement and activity increasingly overlap with big cat habitat, the frequency of human conflict over wildlife is rising, often precipitating direct costs to people living near big cats. Big cats are rare, they play many critical roles in the ecosystems they inhabit, and are often flagship conservation species because they are poster‐charismatic megafauna. As many of the costs of conservation are borne by locals, local acceptance of big cats on the landscape is fundamental to the success of in‐situ conservation of these species. Here, we explore this issue by conducting a systematic literature review of articles that directly measure local perceptions (or acceptance) of big cats quantitatively. We normalized all perception data so we could synthesize results across places and species. The final set of data included the views of 14 253 locals from 45 papers, interrogating five different question types on local perceptions of big cats. Across these studies, we found that locals generally hold neutral or slightly positive perceptions of big cats – particularly for tigers and mountain lions. On average, livestock owners have more negative perceptions of big cats compared to non‐livestock owners. Geographically, there are large portions of big cat population ranges where no research on local perceptions exist. These results call for two things (1) rethinking the perception that locals largely hold negative views toward big cats across their ranges and (2) more systematic research across big cat species ranges to better understand local perceptions, what drives those perceptions, and how they impact the outcomes of conservation approaches. Local perceptions of big cats is a critical point of study in increasing the likelihood of successful conservation campaigns. This article summarizes the work of 45 journal articles in the space of local perceptions of big cats. Among our findings is that locals often have neutral or positive perceptions of both tigers and mountain lions, which is contrary to the popular narrative that locals do not tolerate these species.
Article
The global trade in wildlife affects ~24% of terrestrial vertebrates, and demand for traditional medicinal materials, especially for traditional Chinese medicine, is a high profile driver. At present the relative extent to which demand for wild-animal-origin medicinal materials arises from different markets (OTCM, zhongyi and CMP, see companion paper) within "TCM" is unknown. We wished to populate the above categories, revealing the numbers and types of species involved, to provide the first consolidated description of the diversity of animal species potentially able to be used for different facets of "TCM”, an overview of their conservation status, and an initial estimate of the degree to which existing trade feeds into these different facets of "TCM”. We found that the number and diversity of wild-animal-origin medicinal materials listed as available for use in "TCM" differ markedly between the Pharmacopoeia of the People’s Republic of China (representing OTCM) - which currently lists 70 wild species - and the Medical Fauna of China, representing zhongyi - which lists 2,275 animal species. Our findings indicated a substantial trade - both imports to, and exports from China - of "TCM" medicinal materials from wild animal taxa listed in the Medical Fauna of China but not listed in the Pharmacopoeia, and also of species for which there is no prior textual support, including species potentially being traded as substitutes for listed species. We recommend working with TCM practitioners to enact the targeted substitution of sustainably sourced plant-based medicinal materials for the currently-used animal-origin materials. We suggest that this should initially target the 70 OTCM species, as well as inferred OTCM species and selected genera likely to be imported as substitutes, to strike a balance between keeping the focus of the required research narrow, while targeting the taxa most likely to be traded.
Article
The global trade in wildlife affects ~24% of terrestrial vertebrates, and demand for traditional medicinal materials, especially for traditional Chinese medicine, is a high profile driver. Much research has established a causal link between demand for medicinal materials for "TCM" and negative impacts on species conservation and on individual animals’ welfare. Key hopes for reducing these impacts are demand reduction and redirection strategies, targetted at consumers and professionals. Conservation research papers routinely treat "TCM" as a homogenous entity, and we argue that in so doing fail to identify distinct markets or communities within "TCM", and that recognising these distinctions would facilitate strategies for reduction and redirection. We present an initial taxonomy of "TCM" – using medicinal materials derived from wild animal species as a proof of concept - separating it into three principal components: (a) zhongyi is the broad, all-inclusive medical field. representing diverse medicinal materials used in so-called pre-modern and modern medical practice and described in a number of traditional and revived modern texts; (b) TCM represents a regulated suite of medical and pharmaceutical practises that began to be established from zhongyi in the 1950s and also belongs among zhongyi practices today. Medicinal materials within TCM which represent a curated subset of those within wider zhongyi, are described in the Pharmacopoeia of the People’s Republic of China, and are subject to change (for example if trade in a species becomes strictly regulated); finally, (c) CMP, ‘Chinese medicine and pharmaco-therapy’ is a neo-liberal extension to mainly TCM but also to some aspects of zhongyi. It represents a highly commodified and commercialised form of TCM and zhongyi and includes also some newly designed health products not previously considered ‘traditional medical’, let alone ‘traditional Chinese medical’ and dispensed in drug shops, frequently in the absence of a medical practitioner. Practitioners, suppliers and potentially consumers in each category of what in conservation circles is labelled using the blanket term "TCM" are likely to regard themselves as distinct from the others. This appreciation raises the possibility of working with official TCM authorities, professional bodies, academics and practitioners to reduce, and perhaps eliminate, the use of species of conservation and animal welfare concern.
Research
Full-text available
A Wildlife Conservation Society report commissioned by the Global Tiger Initiative Suggested citation: J. Walston, K.U. Karanth, and E.J. Stokes. 2010. Avoiding the Unthinkable: What Will it Cost to Prevent Tigers Becoming Extinct in the Wild? Wildlife Conservation Society, New York.
Article
Full-text available
Human-killing by tigers (Panthera tigris) in the Bangladesh Sundarbans may lead to negative attitudes and retribution killings by local communities, which in turn may have a substantial impact on the long-term viability of the tiger population. The objectives of this paper were therefore to (1) assess the scale and historical trend of tiger attacks on humans in the Bangladesh SRF, and (2) build a profile of the tigers carrying out the attacks. We collated available literature cataloging official government records of tiger attacks on humans, and built tiger profiles using the location and time of each attack. A total of 1 396 human deaths were recorded over 63 years, or an average of 22 human deaths/year. An estimated total of 110 tigers killed humans in the SRF over 23 years with a mean five victims/tiger, and most tigers that killed humans were concentrated in the west. An estimated 50% of tigers only killed one person, and tigers that killed more than one person accounted for 81% of total human fatalities. These results support recommendations for the collaring human-killing tigers and the formation of tiger response teams to reduce the number of humans killed by tigers over time.
Book
Full-text available
This monograph presents the results of an effort to monitor a population of Amur (Siberian) tigers in the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve. Amur tiger population density was estimated using camera trap identi cation methods. The authors demonstrated the effectiveness of camera traps for Amur tiger monitoring. The most recent statistically valid data on tiger abundance and population density in the Reserve are presented. The authors analyzed the structure of the tiger population in the study area using camera trap data. Comparisons between data obtained with camera traps, traditional winter snow track counts, and radio-telemetry are presented. Recommendations are made for the use of the camera traps for monitoring Amur tiger populations, which are an important component of effective conservation for this subspecies. This monograph is geared towards biologists, ecologists, hunting area managers, conservation specialists, administrators, as well as graduate and undergraduate students.
Article
Spacing patterns of large carnivores can affect demographic parameters of populations that, in turn, influence effective population size. As a result, better understanding of spatial structure can provide insight into effective conservation strategies. We examined home-range size, spacing characteristics, and changes in land tenure of radiocollared Amur tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) on the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Zapovednik, Russia, from 1992 to 2006. We predicted that both sexes would maintain spatially exclusive home ranges and that subadult female tigers would tend toward philopatry and males would disperse. Home ranges (95% fixed kernel estimates; mean ± SD) of resident females (n = 20 home ranges of 14 females; 390 ± 136 km2) were significantly (P = 0•003) smaller than those of males (n 6 home ranges of 5 males; 1,385 ± 539 km2). Geometric mean overlap between adjacent females (0•11 ± 0•11 SD) did not differ from that between adjacent males (0•14 ± 0•12). All radiocollared male cubs dispersed (n = 7), but only 2 of 6 female cubs dispersed from their natal home ranges. When human-caused mortality was low, female tigers survived long enough to divide their home range with their daughters, resulting in smaller home ranges and a higher density of breeding females. All females reproduced in these smaller territories, suggesting that they maintained home ranges that were larger than needed to meet reproductive demands. However, when human-caused mortality was high, females often did not survive long enough to bequeath home ranges to daughters, and population density was apparently maintained well below carrying capacity. The impacts of poaching appear to extend beyond the direct loss of individuals, and therefore reserves must be well protected if they are to serve as source populations for adjacent, unprotected areas of tiger habitat.
Article
This chapter summarizes the trends revealed by two range-wide analyses on the conservation potential of tigers, performed a decade apart. The analysis is focuses on the managing large landscapes that harbor populations of tigers across all the ecotypes they inhabit. The second range-wide assessment is used to present three possible future scenarios for tigers. The first scenario extends the status quo of current rates of decline in tiger habitat and connectivity. The second projects the consequences of modest habitat restoration on landscapes and populations. The third invokes the importance of governments, NGOs, and others to make strong, lasting commitments to save tiger lands and tigers. The latter also predicts the disastrous effects of a legalized trade in farmed tigers on wild populations that will exacerbate other more regional effects such as the spread of logging into remaining habitats and the growth of the palm oil industry in the region.