Content uploaded by Agnish Kumar Das
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Agnish Kumar Das on Nov 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Page 165
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
A Review On The Aspects Of Carnivore Conservation Using The
Asiatic Lion (Panthera Leo Persica) In GIR As A Representative
Species
Agnish Kumar Das
M.Sc. Environment Management, Forest Research Institute,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
I. INTRODUCTION
Carnivores comprise of 287 extant species in 123 genera
which belong to 16 families (Karanth and Chellam, 2009).
Most of these species are threatened by the loss and
fragmentation of their habitat, and also by their hunting for
food, trophies and curatives (Karanth and Chellam, 2009). An
insidious threat to carnivores is the depletion of prey whose
immediate effect many not be observed (Karanth and Chellam,
2009). These carnivores are charismatic animals which engage
the attention of humans over a multitude of factors (Karanth
and Chellam, 2009). Carnivores, across both historical and
time scales have been in a state of conflict with humans over
food and space (Inskip and Zimmermann, 2008). Furthermore,
their cultural perceptions shaped by the fear, admiration and
superstition, which poses a threat to their existence (Karanth
and Chellam, 2009). However, the existence of carnivores is
imperative to the functioning of the ecosystem primarily due
their position in the trophic level, their functioning as
Umbrella and Keystone species, and due to them being K-
selected species. In light of this, the importance of the
conservation of the carnivores is assessed.
Abstract: Carnivores occupy the apex position in the food chain and thereby exert a top down control on the
ecosystem. This makes the presence of the carnivores vital to the sustenance of the ecosystem. However, due to the
growing human population and encroachments on the habitat of these carnivores, their numbers have decreased in the
past two centuries. Furthermore, anthropogenic activities such as hunting and wildlife trade have also affected the
carnivore populations. Conserving carnivores is a difficult task because of such reasons and due to certain characteristic
features of the carnivores themselves. Carnivores are K-selected species and a large area is also required to sustain a
viable carnivore population.
The last free-ranging population of Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) in the Gir forests of Gujarat, India typifies all
the challenges of carnivore conservation – small founder base, restricted to the single site, occur at higher trophic level,
protein diet, large home range sizes and space utilization across human dominated landscapes resulting into human-lion
interfaces. All these make the species vulnerable to extinction by stochastic events. Therefore, this paper reviews aspects
of carnivore conservation in detail using the Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica) as a representative species. The study
reveals that deforestation and habitat alterations are serious threats to wildlife. This study reveals that although the
population of the carnivores increase through species-centric methods, isolation of populations consequentially lead to
inbreeding, increased homozygosity and greater susceptibility to various environmental stresses. Establishing connectivity
between the various Protected Areas is imperative as far as the conservation of large carnivores is concerned, landscape
planning and management should be advocated.
Keywords: Carnivores, conservation, Asiatic lion, homozygosity, landscape planning.
Page 166
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
POSITION IN THE TROPHIC STRUCTURE
Trophic levels refer to the functional classification of
organisms according to feeding relationships, which range
from first-level autotrophs, through the succeeding levels of
herbivores, up to the carnivores (Odum, 1983) which are
situated at the apex of the trophic structure. The trophic
structure is an organization of a biological community based
on the number of feeding levels present (Smith and Smith,
2015). The food web is constituted by the various organisms
functioning in different food chains at various trophic levels.
The food web has its effects on the ecosystem variability in
the form of prey-predator interactions and it’s control on the
structure of the ecological community (Carpenter and Kitchell,
1987). Variability at the top of the food web cascades down to
the organisms present in the lower trophic levels (Carpenter
and Kitchell, 1996; Paine, 1980) Carnivores being tertiary
consumers occupy the apex position in the food web and
variability in their numbers cascade down to the lower levels
exhibiting a top down control (Dorresteijn et al.,2014) on the
structure of the ecological community. Carnivores, thus, are
major controllers of the food chain dynamics. Carnivores keep
the prey population in check and consequently control the
dynamics of the vegetation communities (Ripple et al., 2014).
Carnivores, thus, demand special attention and need to be
conserved.
KEYSTONE SPECIES
A keystone is the wedge-shaped stone piece at the apex of
a masonry arch. It is the final piece of construction and it locks
all the pieces of stone in position. The role that keystone
species play is analogous to the role played by the keystone in
architecture. Keystone species in a community refers to those
species in which has a disproportionately large effect on the
environment with respect to their abundance (Paine, 1969) and
keystone species has effects on the community structure, prey
density and diversity of the community (Noss et al., 1996). As
per a predictive study, if Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) are to
cover 34% of the State of Idaho in the United States of
America, which is 10% or more of their statewide ranges; 71%
of the mammalian species, 67% of the birds and 61% of the
amphibian species would be conserved (Noss et al., 1996).
Wolves (Canis lupus) in North America regulate prey
populations (Noss et al., 1996). Medium sized predators are
kept under a check by coyotes (Canis latrans), and it was
observed that attack or heavy predation on birds’ nests by
those medium sized predators in some canyons in Southern
California was due to the absence of coyotes or large predators
in that region(Noss et al., 1996). Keystone species should also
be of special importance to policy makers and environmental
managers (Paine, 1995) as like the keystone in architecture,
they hold the functioning and stability of the ecosystem in
position. Keystone species with their importance in the
ecosystem and their popularity make it easier for the policy
makers to take decisions pertaining to conservation.
UMBRELLA SPECIES
The Umbrella species is a concept which presents us a
notion that the conservation of certain species will
consequentially lead to the conservation of many other
species. Umbrella species maybe defined as such a species
which has large area requirements and therefore with
conservation of these species, many other species would be
conserved in the process (Ozaki et al.,2006). The concept and
the application of the idea of umbrella species is still
controversial (Caro, 2003), but cases of such a phenomenon
occurring have also been observed. The importance of large
carnivores as umbrella species should be stressed upon as their
large area requirements help in conserving other species
(Caro, 2003). Reserves were designed in East Africa by using
the concept of umbrella species (Caro, 2003). By using
umbrella species as a tool for the designing of reserves, a large
number of unknown and unidentified species which were
under threat were discovered (Caro, 2003).
With regard to the aforementioned argument, it is
important to assess the ecological attributes of carnivores, the
challenges faced in the process of conserving them and the
efforts undertaken to conserve them. For this, the Asiatic Lion
(Panthera leo persica) in Gir, Gujarat, India has been taken as
the representative species. The Lion (Pantheraleo spp.) is a
charismatic carnivore, a key stone species, making it ideal to
be a flagship or an umbrella species (Dalerum et al., 2008).
The two present extant populations of the Lion are the African
Lion (Panthera leo senegalensis, Panthera leo bleyenberghi,
Panthera leo melanochaita, Panthera leo krugeri, Panthera
leo roosevelti) and the Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica).
The Asiatic lion is listed as Endangered in the Red Data Book
of the IUCN (Breitenmoser et al., 2008). This species typifies
all the challenges of carnivore conservation – small founder
base, restricted to the single site, occur at higher trophic level,
protein diet, large home range sizes and space utilization
across human dominated landscapes resulting into human-lion
interfaces. All these make the species vulnerable to extinction
by stochastic events. In light of this, the ecological attributes
of the Asiatic lion, the overall challenges to carnivore
conservation, and the efforts to conserve are reviewed, and the
gaps in the process of conservation are tried to be evaluated.
II. ECOLOGY OF THE ASIATIC LION
HABITAT
To understand the ecological attributes of a particular
species, it is important to study, understand and know the
habitat preferences of the species, as the habitat is the address
of that particular species. As far as Asiatic lions are
concerned, lions prefer open forests over dense forests and
prefer savanna type ecosystem (Jhala et al., 2009). However,
due to extensive conservation efforts, the habitat in Gir has
become denser making it slightly unsuitable for the Asiatic
Lion (Singh and Kamboj, 1996).
The habitat types in Gir can be classified in the following
way:
Page 167
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
Moist mixed forest: It includes the riverine habitats of
Gir. The dominant species are Tectona grandis in the Gir
west which was replaced by Anogeissus spp. and Acacia
spp. in the Gir east and to a larger extent in Central Gir.
The species associated are Wrightia tinctoria, Syzigium
spp., Mitragyna parviflora, Diospyros melanoxylon,
Emblica officinalis and Ziziphus spp. The understory is
comprised of Carissa carandas, Capparis sepiaria,
Helicteres isora etc. This habitat type is the densest and
has the highest canopy cover.
Mixed forest: The dominant species are Tectona grandis
in the Gir west which was replaced by Anogeissus spp.
and Acacia spp. in the Gir east and to a larger extent in
Central Gir. The associated species are Diospyros
melanoxylon, Gmelina arborea and Mallotus
phillipinensis. The understory is comprised of Ziziphus
spp., Wrightia tinctoria, Grewiati liaefolia, Manilkara
hexandra and Capparis sepiaria. This habitat type is
dense with good canopy cover.
Teak-Acacia-Ziziphus-Anogeissus forest: The dominant
species are Tectona grandis in the west which was
replaced by Anogeissus spp. and Acacia spp. in the east
and to a larger extent in Central Gir. The co-associates are
Ziziphus spp., Acacia spp., and Terminalia spp. The
understory is composed of Cappparis sepiaria and
Carissa carandas. This habitat type is moderately dense
with sparse canopy cover.
Acacia-Lannea-Boswellia forest: This forest type is found
in hilly areas of Gir. The association is characterized by
Acacia spp., Boswellia serrata, Lannea coromandelica,
Tectona grandis, Terminalia crenulata, Soyamida
febrifuga, Wrightia tinctoria and Stercule aurens. This
habitat type is moderately open with sparse canopy cover.
Thorn and scrubland: This association was characterized
by patchy and stunted growth of scrub species like Acacia
catechu, Acacia leucophloea, Ziziphus numularia and
Balanites aegyptica. This habitat type is quite open with
sparse to moderate cover.
Savanna: It had scattered growth of trees like Acacia spp.,
Terminalia crenulata, Tectona grandis, Bauhinia
racemosa, Anogeissus spp., Boswellia serrata and
Balanites aegyptica. The grasses like Apluda mutica,
Heteropogon contotus, Themeda quadrivalvis and Sehima
nervosum formed the ground layer. This habitat type has
very poor canopy cover.
Agriculture: It includes the open agricultural fields, open
grass meadows and wasteland patches in and around Gir
National Park (Qureshi and Shah, 2004).
Among these habitats, the habitat preference of Lions in
the day is: Moist Mixed forests >Mixed forests>Teak-Acacia-
Ziziphus-Anogeissus forests>Savanna habitat>Acacia-Lannea-
Boswellia forests>Thorn and scrub forests>Agriculture areas
(Jhala et al., 2009).
The habitat preference of Lions during the night is: Mixed
forests >Moist Mixed forests>Acacia-Lannea-
Boswelliaforests>Teak-Acacia-Ziziphus-Anogeissus
forests>Savanna habitat>Thorn and scrub forests>Agriculture
areas (Jhala et al., 2009).
BEHAVIOR
Lions live in groups and this is a trait which developed
during the due course of evolution before they left Africa and
this is a trait which has been retained by the subsequent
populations too (Yamaguchi et al., 2004).
An important attribute of a carnivore is that they are
territorial and in case of Asiatic lions, the territory size is
dictated by the females (Jhala et al., 2009). The breeding
females defend the resource based territories and the males, on
the other hand, maximize the coverage of the female groups
(Jhala et al., 2009). The mothers in case of the African lions
keep their cubs in a creche and form highly stable maternity
groups that are effective in defending cubs against infanticide
males (Packer et al., 1990). Females live in social units
(prides) and forage with the mother of members of their pride.
Three types of foraging patterns have been observed, (a)
refraining (non-participation of an individual), (b) confronting
(active participation of all individuals in the pride and all
individuals showing similar behaviour) and (c) pursuing
(involves active participation but individual behaviour differs)
(Scheel and Packer, 1991). Refraining is observed more for
hunts of prey which are comparatively easier to catch (Scheel
and Packer, 1991). Refraining is more commonly exhibited by
males than females (Scheel and Packer, 1991). A large
divisible prey provides food for all members in the group
(Scheel and Packer, 1991). Female pride mates have equal
access to the food (Packer and Pussey, 1985) as there is no
social dominance among females in the same pride (Schaller,
1972).The population density of the lions is determined by the
territory size and the group size.
The relative proportions of male coalitions and female
prides are very important aspects in determining social
structuring and cub survival in lions (Loveridge and
Macdonald 2002, Cooper, 1991). Fewer male coalitions in
relation to prides result in extensive, unrestrained movement
of male lions between prides (Loveridgeand Macdonald,
2002) and also in making the prides to be more vulnerable to
infanticide by other males (Cooper, 1991). Almost all lion
populations show a slight bias towards females and have an
adult population sex ratio of 1:2 (Schaller 1972; Mills et al.,
1978; Packer et al.,1988; Stander, 1991; Creel and Creel,
1997). The fitness, reproductive rate and rate of cub survival
are dependent on the pride size in lions (Packer et al., 1988).
In Gir, females form small associations of 2-3 individuals.
However, during mating, the female dissociates from the
pride, and then rejoins the pride after the mating with the male
is completed (Meena, 2008). Following cub births in Asiatic
lions, the younger sub-adult females stay back to protect the
cubs against infanticide males while the adult female mother
goes on the hunt for prey (Meena, 2008). The population
density of the lions is determined by the territory size and the
group size. Territory marking is an important feature of a
carnivore. The Asiatic lion males generally use roaring,
scraping, defecation and spraying as the methods for marking
territory (Meena, 2008). Asiatic lions, most commonly use the
technique of spraying urine for the marking of their territory
(Meena, 2008).
Page 168
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
III. CHALLENGES OF CARNIVORE CONSERVATION
K-SELECTED SPECIES
Organisms show two distinct strategies with regard to
their growth, the r-strategies and k-strategies (Krebs, 1972).
The k-strategists are termed as k-selected species. The concept
of r/K selection originated in the late 1960s as a result of
extensive research on island biogeography (MacArthur and
Wilson, 1967). Large carnivores are k-selected species and are
characterized by their property of having more or less stable
populations which are adapted to exist at or near the carrying
capacity (Smith and Smith, 2014). Carnivores, being k-
selected species show better competitive ability in conditions
where resources are limited. K-selected species have their
numbers around the carrying capacity. Therefore, carnivores
have a well defined upper limit to their numbers (Santiapillai
and Jayewardane, 2004) in an ecological community showing
density dependent growth curve. K-selected species show the
following properties in their life history:
Life History Feature
k-selected species
Intrinsic Rate of Increase
Low
Development
Slow
Reproductive Rate
Low
Reproductive Age
Late
Body Size
Large
Length of Life
Long
Competitive Ability
Strong
Survivorship
low mortality of Young(Type I)
Population Size
fairly constant
Dispersal Ability
Poor
Reproductive Strategy
Iteroparity
Habitat type
less disturbed.
(after Stiling, 2012).
Carnivores show k-selected traits such as iteroparity, low
rate of increase, protein diet, long ranging. These make them
more vulnerable to environmental and stochastic events in
comparison to r-selected species. This makes conservation of
carnivores considerably difficult.
RANGE, GENETICS AND METAPOPULATION
DYNAMICS
Carnivores require a large area at their disposal to survive
due to their behaviour. This makes the range that an animal
inhabits an important aspect in conservation practices. For
example, male lions are known to travel or disperse more than
200km in one or two years in Serengeti (Schaller, 1972).For
example, tigers are long ranging animals and recorded data
from the semi-arid landscape of western India show that the
average distances dispersed by male and female tigers are
124.2 km and 78.4 kms respectively (Singh et al., 2013).
However, under present conditions, tigers occupy only 7.1%
of their historic range (Wikramanayake et al., 1998) and
furthermore, the tigers like many other carnivores under threat
have been restricted to isolated patches of Protected
Areas(Kenny et al., 2014) surrounded by inhospitable land-use
patches making individuals among patches difficult. With
individuals being restricted to single sites, chances of
inbreeding become higher resulting into a population with low
heterozygosity and making them susceptible to diseases
(O’Brien, 2003).
Tiger Reserves should ideally be of 800-1000 km2 in area
to support a viable tiger population and currently, the
Protected Areas that exist are small to support a
demographically viable population (Ranganathan et al., 2008),
and hence it is important to ensure that there exists
metapopulation dynamics for viability of the population
(Hanski, 1994). A study shows that the average distance
between two tiger reserves in the North-Western part of the
country is 120km and in Central India it is even greater with
200km (Joshi et al., 2014). Maintaining corridor connectivity
for such longer distance becomes a challenge with the current
pace of linear development and urban sprawl. However, the
increase inbreeding rate of carnivores would increase with the
establishment of metapopulation dynamics between isolated
patches. This gives rise to the necessity of establishing
connectivity between Protected Areas (Joshi et al., 2014).
Lack of connectivity also increases the chances of
population bottlenecks. A study on East African Cheetahs
show polymorphism at 2-4% and an average heterozygosity of
0.0004-0.0014) establishing them as one of the least
genetically variable felid (O’Brien et al., 1987). The Cheetahs
have shown extreme paucity of genetic variation and
monomorphism at MHCs (Major Histocompatibility
Complex(a set of cell surface proteins) which are polymorphic
in nearly all other mammals and 71% abnormalities in the
sperm ejaculated (O’Brien et al., 1987). Such data reveals that
cheetahs have decreased heterozygosity, they are inbred and it
also shows the population bottleneck that it underwent.
Lions evolved from several Pleistocene refugia in sub-
Saharan Africa and entered India almost concomitant with
Aryan entry. The species once boasted of a wide distribution
in terms of area. They were previously distributed from Syria
in the western part of Asia, in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and
India(Jhala et al, 2009; Kinnear, 1920; Mac Donald, 1992),
but due to a very low population level of mitochondrial DNA
nucleotide diversity, lack of SRY genetic variation across
male lions decreased their numbers in the late Pleistocene era
(Antunes et al., 2008). In India they had an extensive
distribution covering almost all the north Indian states (Singh,
2007). About 2600 years ago, Saurashtra peninsula became
isolated from mainland India by Gulf of Cambay due to tidal
activities and it got re-united with Indian mainland only in
recent times (Driscoll et al., 2002). However, when it became
part of mainland India; lion populations from rest of India
became almost extinct (Kinnear, 1920 ; Pocock, 1930) due to
hunting and habitat destruction (late 1880s). Lions are also
long ranging carnivores. The pride lionesses in Serengeti have
been known to have home ranges between 20 km2 to 400 km2
(Schaller, 1972). The female lions in Gir have been estimated
to have a home range size between 72 to 81 km2 (Joslin,
1973). In recent times, lions have been present only in the Gir
National Park in Gujarat. This has not allowed any
metapopulation dynamics to function in the present population
as metapopulation dynamics involves immigration and
emigration of individuals between populations and there
would be gene flow between the populations. With only one
viable population in an isolated location, the Asiatic lions have
Page 169
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
mated among themselves in the region. This has led to the
founders of modern day lions to be genetically inbred.
(After Singh, 2017)
Table 1: Population trend and lion dispersion
In the Gir landscape, there is presence of metapopulation
dynamics at present with the population in the Gir landscape
with the lion population in the Gir National Park functioning
as the source population. The populations in the agropastoral
regions around the Gir National Park are the sink population.
In the table above (Table 1), the sink populations are referred
to as satellite populations. Table 2 shows the growth of the
lion and ungulate populations in the Gir forest landscape over
the past four decades.
Total
population
Lions in and
Wild ungulates in
the
Ungulates
per lion
Year
of lions
around the Gir
forest
Gir forest
in the Gir
forest
1974
180
180
9,640
54
1984
239
235
16,910
74
1995
304
265
38,220
146
2005
359
291
51,330
176
2015
523
315
83,150
264
(after Singh, 2017)
Table 2: Decadal growth of lion and wild ungulate population
in the Gir forest
PREY DENSITY
For evaluating the role of carnivores in an ecosystem, the
prey consumption mechanisms and the constraints of
predation must be clearly understood (Chakrabarti et al.,
2016). The phenomenon of predation is vital as it links all the
trophic levels and is also responsible for important ecological
and evolutionary processes (Fryxell et al., 2007). Predator
densities are estimated or determined by the available prey
biomass (Carbone and Gittleman, 2002). Therefore,
understanding of predator consumption patterns is necessary
for the estimation of their carrying capacities. Estimation of
their carrying capacities would aid in the management efforts
(Hayward et al., 2007) Tiger populations, for example, are
dictated by the prey densities (Chapron et al., 2008). A model
linking prey depletion and population persistence in tigers
shows that when the prey density is low, the cub survival rate
is low and it remains at the lower level as long as the prey
density levels are low (Karanth and Stith, 1999). A carnivore’s
food habits are one of the major determining factors of the life
history strategy adopted by the species (Krebs, 1978) and
hence, clear understanding of the phenomenon is imperative.
In Asiatic lions, selective feeding is noted. Biomass
model formed through the usage of the principles of allometry,
has shown that for large carcasses, the species selectively feed
on the highly digestible flesh and leave the bones untouched
but for small carcasses, the entire carcass is consumed except
a few bones and feathers (Chakrabarti et al., 2016). From
studies conducted, lions showed varied preferences for
different prey at different livestock biomass levels.
Human-Wildlife conflict also increases due to depletion
in prey density as carnivores are forced to feed on livestock. It
has been seen that a large percentage of the assessed scats of
large felids show the presence of livestock at around 10-12%
(Sunquist and Sunquist, 1989).
HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT
Human-Wildlife conflict can be defined as ―any
interaction between humans and wildlife that results in
negative impacts on human social, economic or cultural life,
on the conservation of wildlife populations, or on the
environment‖-World Wildlife Fund.
Carnivores compete and conflict on an intense level with
humans over food and space (Karanth and Chellam, 2009). As
a result of the growing human population, the number of
carnivores in the world have decreased as they have now come
in to close proximity with anthropogenic activities (Cardillo et
al., 2004).In the Pine Ridge Forest Reserve, humans exist
along with the endangered Puma (Puma concolor) and
Jaguar(Panthera onca) and it has been observed that the
animals are sensitive to humans and the disturbance caused by
humans in around the forest(Davis et al., 2010). It can also be
understood from the carnivores’ choice of habitat as they
prefer areas with lesser human interference (Davis et al.,
2010).
Presently, it can be said that carnivore conservation is at
the crossroads and at the helm of this creation of crossroad,
lies human-wildlife conflict. With rapid habitat fragmentation
taking place, conflict is inevitable, with many species being
extirpated locally due to conflict (Dorresteijn et al, 2014).
Major landscape management is the call of the hour with
Asiatic Black Bear and Human interactions leading to attacks
on humans, livestock depredation (7%), crop depredation
(85%) (Charoo et al., 2011). Intensity of such attacks has
increased in the recent years.
A large number of conflicts occur due to poor
understanding of the social underpinnings of the Human-
Wildlife conflict (Bagchi and Mishra, 2005). Human-Wildlife
conflicts often manifests in the form of livestock depredation.
For proper management of conflict, the understanding of the
importance of livestock in carnivore diets is important (Bagchi
and Mishra, 2005). It has been observed that conflict issues
are more in those areas of South and Central Asia which have
a higher livestock percentage. In areas with higher
livestock(29.7/ km2), the incidence of human wildlife conflict
is greater at 58% (Bagchi and Mishra, 2005).
Carnivores living in human dominated landscapes or in
landscapes adjoining human inhabitation inevitably lead to
interactions between two species which at times affect the
Page 170
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
involved species leading to Human-Wildlife conflict in the
region. The Gir National Park has regions of human
inhabitation around its borders and this has in the past led to
conflicts and repercussions from the side of the humans.
The conflicts have been affected by a large number of
factors including the dissatisfaction of the affected people with
the Government compensation, increase in the human
population and thus their expansion of area, and the fact that
the Asiatic Lions feed on livestock, thereby causing livestock
damage (Sabrewal et al., 1994).
Even with the conflicts at play, Asiatic lions coexist with
the Maldhari communities in the Gir forests suggesting that
the coexistence is beneficial for the tribal community and the
lions (Banerjee et al., 2013). Lion densities were actually
found out to be higher in the areas where there were Maldhari
livestock were present in comparison to areas where there
weren’t (Banerjee et al., 2013). The Maldharis incur a huge
capital loss due to livestock depredation but 64% of this loss is
compensated by the government. Furthermore, the Maldharis
enjoy the advantage of using and exploiting the forest
resources for free which is something the non-forest dwelling
pastoralists cannot. These factors coupled with the general
tolerance of Maldharis towards the lion have ensured proper
conservation of Asiatic lions in the Gir National Park
(Banerjee et al., 2013).
HUNTING AND POACHING
Hunting and poaching have a far reaching effect on
wildlife, food webs and ecosystems. It is difficult to mitigate
the impacts of hunting as associated with it are generally a
variety of socioeconomic and cultural challenges. Six of the
nine large mammals Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), Lion
(Panthera leo persica), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Elephant
(Elephas maximus), One-horned Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis)
and Sloth bear (Melorsus ursinus) in India have faced
tremendous decline due to hunting (Velho et al., 2012).
Asiatic lions have been slaughtered by both Indian and
European game hunters in the past. Hunting was the reason
behind the species almost being extinct at the beginning of the
20th century (Hazarika, 1994). The region where they existed
was declared to be game reserve before India’s independence
in 1947 and at that time, permits for hunting were issued by
the local administration (Hazarika, 1994). It is only after Gir
was declared to be a National Park in 1970 that incidents of
hunting decreased as anyone caught hunting the animal was
prosecuted (Hazarika, 1994). The Wildlife Protection Act of
India, 1972 prohibits hunting, but hunting activities still occur
in India (Velho et al., 2012). Poachers killed eight lions in the
Babaria range of Gir West Division in March, 2007 (Singh,
2007). Although, not poaching, but lions have been poisoned
by villagers in retaliation to the livestock hunt by lions (Singh,
2007).
IV. CONSERVATION EFFORTS
GIR LION PROJECT
The Gir Lion Project was started by the Government of
Gujarat for the conservation of Asiatic Lions when the species
came closest to extinction with less than 50 lions being present
within the boundary of the Gir National Park.
The implementation of the schemes began in the year
1972. The erstwhile Gir Sanctuary, the sole area left with lions
was extended in 1974 and was upgraded to a National Park in
1975. In 1978, an additional area of 118.3 sq.km was declared
as National Park, thereby increasing the total area under the
National Park to 258.71 sq.km.
Human disturbances were decreased by the relocation of
the families of resident grazers outside the sanctuary which
minimized the human disturbances and helped the wildlife
immensely (Khan, 1993).
The number of lions have increased to 523 at present
which a large number of them migrating outside the borders of
the National Park to neighbouring agropastoral regions
(Banerjee et al., 2009).
REINTRODUCTION OF ASIATIC LION
Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) has only one extant
population in the Gir National Park in the western state of
Gujarat in India. The existence of one isolated population
increases the chances of inbreeding in the population and
increases the individuals’ susceptibility to diseases. Such a
case occurred in the lions in Serengeti in 1994 when about
1000 individuals died due to an outbreak of the Canine
Distemper Virus (Roelke-Parker et al., 1996). To prevent such
incidences from occurring, a plan to reintroduce lions in a
region they formerly occupied in the Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary
in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh was chalked out.
―Reintroduction is the intentional movement and release
of an organism inside its indigenous range from which it has
disappeared.‖-IUCN.
Re-introduction has proved to be a valuable tool for the
recovery of the species that have become either globally or
locally extinct in the wild (Woodroffe, 1999). Reintroductions
can also give us an insight into the reasons of disappearance of
a species from the areas where they formerly occurred, but it
requires that it is genuinely experimental and properly
monitored (Sutherland, 2004). Reintroduction is one such
promising tool which has an important role to play in the
current carnivore restoration efforts. But reintroduction
programmes are expensive and time consuming affair and
corresponding success rates are low which makes it difficult to
justify spending precious conservation money in favour of
reintroductions as against other in situ conservation measures
(Pullin, 2002). Therefore it becomes highly imperative that
reintroductions are based on sound scientific principles and
methodology so that the success rates are high and the efforts
are fruitful enough. The reintroduction and recovery of the
Florida Panther (Puma concolor) in Florida, USA during early
1980’s (Shekhawat, 2012), reintroduction of African wild dog
(Lycaon pictus) in Africa in 1990’s (Shekhawat, 2012) are two
such instances on large carnivores that enriched our
Page 171
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
knowledge about the science and management of carnivore
reintroductions. A reintroduction plan was formulated by the
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun in 1995. The
reintroduction plan was to reintroduce lions to Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh (Kabra, 2006)
KUNO WILDLIFE SANCTUARY: Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary (WLS) is spread over an area of 344.68 km2 and is
situated in Sheopur district of Madhya Pradesh. The Sanctuary
is part of the Kuno wildlife division which covers an area of
1235.39 km2.
To assess whether the Sanctuary had sufficient wild
ungulates to support a population of lions, 17 transects totaling
461 km were surveyed over an area of 280 km2 in early 2005
(Johnsingh et al., 2007). The density of potential ungulate prey
was found to be 13 animals/km2 (Johnsingh et al., 2007).
There were also present 2500 feral cattle, which were left
behind by the translocated villagers. The cattle were also taken
in to consideration as they would serve as buffer prey if
droughts adversely affected the populations of wild ungulates
(Johnsingh et al., 2007).
For the analysis of the conditions at Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary, a prey assessment of the region was done, and a
plan to relocate the villages in the Sanctuary premises outside
the sanctuary was also formulated. The prey assessment done
in 2013 yielded the following results:
Species
3/4th of
Female
Body
Weight(kg)
Population
Density/km2 ±
Standard
error
Biomass(kg/km2)
Chital
30
69.36 +- 10.51
2080.8 +-315.3
Sambar
120
4.85 +- 1.19
582.0 +- 142.8
Nilgai
120
3.92 +- 0.97
470.4 +- 116.4
Wild Pig
27
3.05 +- 0.78
82.35 +- 21.06
Chinkara
12
0.86 +- 0.28
10.32 +- 3.36
Four-
horned
antelope
15
1.00 +- 0.44
15.0 +- 0.66
Gray
Langur
7
40.14 +- 10.27
280.98 +- 71.89
Peafowl
3
13.84 +- 2.83
41.52 +- 8.46
Feral
cattle
40
2.34 +- 1.2
93.6 +- 48
Total= 3656.97 +-
733.7.
(after Sharma et al., 2013)
The demand for relocation of lions had been doing the
rounds since the 1990s when the Wildlife Institute of India
carried out a detailed study in the Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in
Madhya Pradesh to assess the suitability of the site for the
proposed relocation of lions (Chellam et al., 1995).
On April 15, 2013, the Honorable Supreme Court of India
directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change to ―take urgent steps for the reintroduction of the
Asiatic lion from Gir forests to Kuno‖ Wildlife Sanctuary in
Madhya Pradesh, neighbouring the state of Gujarat. It had
asked the authorities to carry out the order in its ―letter and
spirit‖ within six months. However, five years hence, the
process has still not been initiated. The Asiatic lion is now
strangled in the Gir National Park by a political deadlock with
the Government of Gujarat opposing the order of the
Honorable Supreme Court of India. Thus, the future of the
species remains uncertain and the plan to reintroduce them has
not yet been implemented.
V. CONCLUSION
Carnivores have been threatened by human activities such
as game hunting and poaching for a long time now.
Conservation efforts in the recent past have bettered the
conditions but other important biological and socioeconomic
factors need to be explored.
For the past thirty years or so, many countries have taken
up legislations to protect their pristine wildlife and over the
year, much light has been thrown on the contribution of the
carnivores in the ecosystem and how their absence from the
ecosystem will affect the dynamics of the ecosystem as
predation links the trophic levels and is responsible for many
ecological and evolutionary phenomena (Chakrabarti et al.,
2016, Fryxell et al., 2007).
With the age of urbanization, and an ever growing human
population, the human-wildlife interface has increased and
thus the challenge of keeping the population of the large
carnivores to socially acceptable and ecologically limits has
increased manifolds (Mech, 1996). Habitat alteration,
deforestation are serious threats to the wildlife.
Therefore, as this literature review reveals, detailed
scientific study about the habitat and ecology of carnivores
coupled with the active participation of the government and
the public is required.
Extensive conservation efforts have yielded great results.
However, there are gaps in those efforts which need to be
filled in the coming days. This literature review reveals the
problem of species-centric conservation which aims at
conserving a single species in the wild in its pristine habitat
only on the Protected Areas. Conserving in the Protected
Areas does increase the number of individuals of the species,
but lack of connectivity between the Protected Areas lead to
isolation of the populations. Isolation of populations
consequentially leads to inbreeding, increased homozygosity
and greater susceptibility to various environmental stresses.
Establishing connectivity between the various Protected Areas
is imperative as far as the conservation of large carnivores is
concerned (Miller and Hobbs, 2002).
Landscape level planning and conserving the landscape
should also be advocated along with the promotion of the
ecosystem services provided by the landscapes within the
public so that conservation can be done at a greater level.
REFERENCES
[1] Antunes, A., Troyer, J.L., Roelke, M.E., Pecon-Slattery,
J., Packer, C., Winterbach, C., Winterbach, H., Hemson,
G., Frank, L., Stander, P., & Siefert, L. (2008). The
evolutionary dynamics of the lion Panthera leo revealed
by host and viral population genomics. PLoS Genetics,
4(11), e1000251.
Page 172
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
[2] Bagchi, S & Mishra, C. (2006). Living with large
carnivores: predation on livestock by the Snow Leopard
(Uncia uncia). Journal of Zoology, 268, 217-224.
[3] Banerjee, K., Jhala, Y. V., Chauhan, K. S., & Dave, C. V.
(2013). Living with lions: the economics of coexistence in
the Gir forests, India. PLoS One, 8(1), e49457.
[4] Banerjee, K., Jhala, Y.V., & Pathak, B. (2009).
Demographic structure and abundance of Asiatic lions
Panthera leo persica in Girnar Wildlife Sanctuary,
Gujarat, India. Oryx, 44(2), 1-4.
[5] Breitenmoser, U., Mallon, D.P., Ahmad Khan, J. &
Driscoll, C. (2008). Panthera leo ssp. persica. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2008,
e.T15952A5327221.
[6] Carbone, C., & Gittleman, J. L. (2002). A common rule
for the scaling of carnivore density. Science, 295(5563),
2273-2276.
[7] Cardillo, M., Purvis, A., Sechrest, W., Gittleman, J.,
Bielby, J., & Mace,G.M. (2004). Human Population
Density and Extinction Risk in the World’s Carnivores.
PLOS Biology, 2(7), 909-914.
[8] Caro, T.M. (2003). Umbrella species: critique and lessons
from East Africa. Animal Conservation, 6, 171-181.
[9] Carpenter, S. R., & Kitchell, J. F. (1996). The trophic
cascade in lakes. Cambridge University Press.
[10] Carpenter, S.R., & Kitchell, J.F. (1987). The temporal
scale of variance in limnetic primary production. The
American Naturalist, 129(3), 417-433.
[11] Chakrabarti, S., Jhala, Y. V., Dutta, S., Qureshi, Q.,
Kadivar, R. F., & Rana, V. J. (2016). Adding constraints
to predation through allometric relation of scats to
consumption. Journal of Animal Ecology, 85(3), 660-670.
[12] Chapron, G., Miquelle, D. G., Lambert, A., Goodrich, J.
M., Legendre, S., & Clobert, J. (2008). The impact on
tigers of poaching versus prey depletion. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 45(6), 1667-1674.
[13] Charoo, S.A., Sharma, L.K., & Sathyakumar,S. (2011).
Asiatic black bear-human interactions around Dachigam
National Park, Kashmir, India. Ursus, 22(2), 106-113.
[14] Chellam, R., Joshua, J., Williams, C. A., & Johnsingh, A.
J. T. (1995). Survey of potential sites for reintroduction of
Asiatic Lions. Unpublished Report, Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehra Dun, India.
[15] Cooper, S.M. (1991). Optimal hunting group size: the
need for lions to defend their kills against loss to spotted
hyaenas. Afr. J. Ecol, 29, 130 -136.
[16] Creel, S., & Creel, N.M. (1997). Lion density and
population structure in the Selous Game Reserve:
evaluation of hunting quotas and offtake. Afr. J. Ecol, 35,
83–93.
[17] Dalerum, F., Somers, M.J., Kunkel, K.E., & Cameron,
E.Z. (2008). The Potential for large carnivores to act as
biodiversity surrogates in southern Africa. Biodiversity
Conservation, 17, 2939–2949.
[18] Davis, M.L., Kelly. M., & Stauffer. D.F. (2010).
Carnivore co-existence and habitat use in the Mountain
Pine Ridge Forest Reserve, Belize. Animal Conservation,
1–10.
[19] Dorresteijn, I., Hanspach, J.,Kecskes, J., Latkova, H.,
Mezey, Z., Sugar, S., Wehrden, H.v., & Fischer, J. (2014).
Human-carnivore coexistence in a traditional rural
landscape. Landscape ecology, 29(7), 1145-1155.
[20] Driscoll, C. A., Menotti-Raymond, M., Nelson, G.,
Goldstein, D., & O'Brien, S. J. (2002). Genomic
microsatellites as evolutionary chronometers: a test in
wild cats. Genome research, 12(3), 414-423.
[21] Fryxell, J.M., Mosser, A., Sinclair, A.R., & Packer, C.
(2007) Group formation stabilizes predator–prey
dynamics. Nature, 449, 1041–1043
[22] Fuller,T.K. (1989). Population dynamics of wolves in
north-central Minnesota. Wildlife monographs 105, The
Wildlife Society, Bethesda, 7.
[23] Gotelli,N.J. (2001). A Primer of Ecology,3, 81-98.
[24] Hanski, I. (1994). Patch occupancy dynamics in
fragmented landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
9(4), 131-135.
[25] Hayward, M.W., O’Brien, J., & Kerley, G.I. (2007).
Carrying capacity of large African predators: predictions
and tests. Biological Conservation, (139), 219–229.
[26] Hazarika, S. (1994). Asiatic Lions Thrive in India Park.
The New York Times.
[27] Inskip, C., & Zimmermann, A. (2008). Human-felid
conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide.
Oryx, 43, 18–34.
[28] Jhala, Y.V., Mukherjee, S., Shah, N., Chauhan, K.S.,
Dave,C.V., Meena,V. & Banerjee, K. (2009). Home
range and habitat preference of female lions (Panthera leo
persica) in Gir forests, India. Biodiversity Conservation,
18, 3383-3394.
[29] Johnsingh, A. J. T., Goyal, S. P., & Qureshi, Q. (2007).
Preparations for the reintroduction of Asiatic lion
Panthera leo persica into Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary,
Madhya Pradesh, India. Oryx, 41(1), 93-96.
[30] Joshi, A., Vaidyanathan, S., Mondol, S., Edgaonkar, A.,
& Ramakrishnan, U. (2013). Connectivity of Tiger
(Panthera tigris) Populations in the Human-Influenced
Forest Mosaic of Central India. PLoS ONE 8(11),
e77980.
[31] Joslin, P. (1973). The Asiatic Lion; a study of ecology
and behaviour. Phd Thesis. University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK, 249.
[32] Kabra, A. (2006). Wildlife protection: Reintroduction and
relocation. Economic and Political Weekly, 1309-1311.
[33] Karanth, K. U., & Stith, M.B. (1999). Prey depletion as a
critical determinant of tiger population viability. Riding
the Tiger: Tiger conservation in human dominated
landscapes. Cambridge University Press, 383.
[34] Karanth, K.U., & Chellam, R. (2009). Carnivore
conservation at the crossroads. Oryx, 43(2), 1-2.
[35] Kellert, S.R., Black, M, Rush, C.R., & Bath, A.J. (1996).
Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North
America. Conservation Biology, 10, 977–990.
[36] Kenney J., Allendorf, F.W., McDougal, C., & Smith,
J.L.D. (2014). How much gene flow is needed to avoid
inbreeding depression in wild tiger populations?
Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 81, 1-5.
[37] Khan, J. A. (1993). Ungulate-habitat relationships in Gir
forest ecosystem and its management implications
(Doctoral dissertation, Aligarh Muslim University).
Page 173
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
[38] Kinnear, N.B. (1920). The past and the present
distribution of the lion in south eastern Asia. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society,27, 33–39.
[39] Krebs, C.J. (1972). ECOLOGY: The experimental
analysis of distribution and abundance.
[40] Krebs, C. J. (1978). A review of the Chitty hypothesis of
population regulation. Canadian journal of zoology,
56(12), 2463-2480.
[41] Loveridge, A.J. & Macdonald, D.W. Impact of trophy
hunting, Hwange, Zimbabwe In: Loveridge, A.J., Lynam,
A. and Macdonald, D.W. (2002). Lion Conservation
Research Workshop 2: Modelling Conflict. Oxford:
WildCRU and Darwin Initiative.
[42] Macdonald, D. (1992). The velvet claw: a natural history
of the carnivores. BBC Books, London.
[43] Mech, L.D. (1996). A new era for carnivore conservation.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24, 397–401.Meena, V.2008.
Reproductive strategy and behaviour of male Asiatic
lions. PhD dissertation, Forest Research Institute, Dehra
Dun.
[44] Miller, J. R., & Hobbs, R. J. (2002). Conservation where
people live and work. Conservation biology, 16(2), 330-
337.
[45] Mills, M.G.L., Wolf, P., Le Riche, E.A.N., & Meyer, I.J.
(1978). Some population characteristics of the lion
Panthera leo in Kalahari Gemsbok National Park.
Koedoe, 21, 163–171.
[46] Noss, R.F., Quigley, H.B., Hornocker, M.G., Merrill, T.,
& Paquet, P.C. (1996). Conservation Biology and
Carnivore Conservation in the Rocky Mountains.
Conservation Biology, 10(4), 949-963.
[47] O'Brien, S.J., Wildt, D.E., Bush, M., Caro, T.M.,
FitzGibbon, C., Aggundey, I., & Leakey, R.E. (1987).
East African Cheetahs: Evidence for Two Population
Bottlenecks? Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 84(2), 508-511.
[48] O'Brien, S. J. (2003). Tears of the cheetah: and other tales
from the genetic frontier. Macmillan.
[49] Odden, M., Wegge, P., & Fredriksen, T. (2010). Do tigers
replace leopards ? If so, why ? The Ecological Society of
Japan, 25, 875-881.
[50] Ozaki, K., Isono, M., Kawahara, T., Iida, S., Kudo, T., &
Fukuyama, K. (2006). A mechanistic approach to
evaluation of umbrella species as conservation surrogates.
Conservation Biology, 20(5), 1507-1515.
[51] Packer, C., & Pusey, A. E. (1984). Infanticide in
carnivores. Infanticide: comparative and evolutionary
perspectives, 31–42.
[52] Packer, C. (1986). The ecology of sociality in felids.
Ecological aspects of social evolution birds and
mammals, 429–451.
[53] Packer, C., Herbst, L. Pusey, A.E., Bygott, J.D., Hanby,
J.P., Cairns, S.J., & Borgerhoff-Mulder. (1988).
Reproductive success of lions. In: Reproductive success.
Ed. Clutton-Brock, T.H.. Univ.Chicago Press, Chicago,
363-383.
[54] Packer, C., Scheel, D., & Pusey, A. E. (1990). Why lions
form groups: food is not enough. The American
Naturalist, 136(1), 1-19.
[55] Paine, R. T. (1969). A Note on Trophic Complexity and
Community Stability. The American Naturalist, 103
(929), 91–93.
[56] Paine,R.T. (1980). Food webs: linkage, interaction
strength and community infrastructure. Journal of animal
ecology,49(3), 667-685
[57] Paine, R. T. (1995). A Conversation on Refining the
Concept of Keystone Species. Conservation Biology,
9(4), 962–964.
[58] Pullin A.S. (2002). Protecting Species through ex-situ
conservation and reintroduction. Conservation Biology.
Cambridge University Press, 345 pp.
[59] Qureshi, Q., & Shah, N. (2004). Vegetation and habitat
monitoring. Jhala,Y.V. (ed) Monitoring of Gir. A
technical report submitted to the Gujarat forest
department under GEF-India ecodevelopment program.
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, 8–14.
[60] Ranganathan, J., Chan, K. M., Karanth, K. U., & Smith, J.
L. D. (2008). Where can tigers persist in the future? A
landscape-scale, density-based population model for the
Indian subcontinent. Biological Conservation, 141(1), 67-
77.
[61] Ripple, W.J., Estes, J.A., Beschta, R.L., Wilmers, C.C.,
Ritchie, E.G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B.,
Letnic, M., Nelson, M.P., & Schmitz, O.J. (2014). Status
and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores.
Science, 343(6167), 1241484.
[62] Roelke-Parker, M., Munson, Linda., Packer, C., Kock, R.,
Cleaveland, S., Carpenter, M.J., O'Brien, S., Pospischil,
A., Hofmann-Lehmann, R., Lutz, H., Mwamengele, G.N.,
Mgasa, M., Machange, G.A., Summers, B.J.G., & Appel,
M. (1996). A canine distemper virus epidemic in
Serengeti lions (Panthera leo). Nature, 379, 441-445.
[63] Saberwal, V.K.,Gibbs, J.P., Chellam, R., & Johnsingh,
A.J.T. (1994). Lion-Human Conflict in the Gir Forest,
India. Conservation Biology, 8(2), 501-507.
[64] Santiapillai, C., & Jayewardene, R. (2004). Conservation
of the leopard and other carnivores in Sri Lanka. Current
Science, 86(8), 1023-1024.
[65] Schaller, G. B. (1972). The Serengeti lion. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
[66] Scheel, D., & Packer, C. (1991). Group hunting behaviour
of lions: A search for cooperation. Animal Behaviour,
41(4), 697-709.
[67] Sharma, S.V., Mishra, K.R., Jhala, Y., Chottekamada,B.,
Ghose, D., & Bhattacharjee, S. (2013). Status of prey in
Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh.
10.13140/RG.2.1.1036.2005.
[68] Shekhawat, R. S. (2012). Reintroduction of Tigers in
India: A case study from the Sariska Tiger Reserve.
[69] Singh, H.S. (2007). The Gir lion Panthera leo persica-A
natural history, conservation status and future prospect.
[70] Singh, R., Qureshi, Q., Sankar, K., Krausman, P. R., &
Goyal, S. P. (2013). Use of camera traps to determine
dispersal of tigers in semi-arid landscape, western India.
Journal of arid environments, 98, 105-108.
[71] Singh, H.S. (2007). The Gir Lion Panthera leo persica—a
natural history, conservation status and future prospect.
Pugmark Qumulus Consortium, Ahmedabad, 320
Page 174
www.ijiras.com | Email: contact@ijiras.com
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)
Volume 7 Issue 6, June 2020
ISSN: 2394-4404
[72] Singh, H.S. (2017). Dispersion of the Asiatic lion
Panthera leo persica and its survival in human-dominated
landscape outside the Gir forest, Gujarat, India. Current
Science, 112(5), 933-940.
[73] Singh, H.S., & Kamboj, D.R. (1996). Biodiversity
conservation plan for Gir (a management plan for Gir
sanctuary and national park), vol I. Forest Department,
Gujarat, 242.
[74] Smith, T.M., & Smith, R.L. (2015). Elements of Ecology,
8, 365.
[75] Stander, P.E. (1991). Foraging Dynamics of lions in a
semi-arid environment. Can. J. Zool, 70, 8 – 21.
[76] Stiling, P. (2012). Ecology: Global Insights and
Investigation, 206.
[77] Sunquist, M.E., & Sunquist, F.C. 1989. Ecological
constraints by predation on large felids. Carnivore
Behavior, Ecology and Evolution: 283-301
[78] Sutherland, W.J. (2004). The Conservation Handbook:
Research Management and Policy. Blackwell Science
Limited.
[79] Wikramanayake, E.D., Dinerstein,E., Robinson, E.D.,
Karanth,U., Rabinowitz,A., Olson,D., Mathew, T.,
Hedao,P., Conner,M., Hemley, G., & Bolze, D. (1998).
An Ecology-Based Method for Defining Priorities for
Large Mammal Conservation: The Tiger as Case Study.
Consevation Biology,12 (4), 865-878.
[80] Wikramanayake,E., Dinerstein,E., Seidensticker,J.,
Lumpkin,S., Pandav,B., Shrestha,M., Mishra,H.,
Ballou,J., Johnsingh, A.J.T., Chestin,I., Sunarto,S.,
Thinley,P., Thapa, K., Jiang,G., Elagupillay,S., Kafley,H.,
Pradhan,N.M.B., Jigme,K., Teak,S., Cutter,P., Aziz,M.A.,
& Than,U. 2011. A landscape-based conservation strategy
to double the wild tiger population. Conservation
Letters,00, 1-9.
[81] Wikramanayake,E.D., McKnight,M., Dinerstein,E.,
Joshi,A., Gurung,B. & Smith,D. (2004). Designing a
Conservation Landscape for Tigers in Human-Dominated
Environments. Conservation Biology,18(3), 839-844.
[82] Woodroffe, R., & Ginsberg, J.R. (1999). Conserving the
African wild dog Lycaon pictus I. Diagnosing and
treating causes of decline. Oryx, 33(2),132-42.
[83] Yamaguchi, N., Cooper,A., Werdelin, L., &
Macdonald,D.W. (2004). Evolution of the mane and
group-living in the lion (Panthera leo): a review. Journal
of the Zoological Society of London, 263, 329–342.
