Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-xwjfq Total loading time: 1.263 Render date: 2023-01-30T16:29:27.140Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Distributional correlates of the Tibetan gazelle Procapra picticaudata in Ladakh, northern India: towards a recovery programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2008

Tsewang Namgail*
Affiliation:
International Snow Leopard Trust (India Program), Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5 IV–Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore–570002, Karnataka, India.
Sumanta Bagchi
Affiliation:
International Snow Leopard Trust (India Program), Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5 IV–Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore–570002, Karnataka, India.
Charudutt Mishra
Affiliation:
International Snow Leopard Trust (India Program), Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5 IV–Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore–570002, Karnataka, India.
Yash Veer Bhatnagar
Affiliation:
International Snow Leopard Trust (India Program), Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5 IV–Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore–570002, Karnataka, India.
*
§International Snow Leopard Trust (India Program), Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5 IV–Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore–570002, Karnataka, India. E-mail namgail@ncf-india.org
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Tibetan gazelle Procapra picticaudata is on the verge of extinction in India with only c. 100 individuals remaining in the Hanle Valley of eastern Ladakh and Sikkim. Conservation planning and initiation of a recovery programme are hindered by lack of ecological information on the species and we therefore assessed the biotic and abiotic correlates of its occurrence in the Hanle Valley. Ecological attributes of areas selected by gazelles were compared with those of adjoining areas without gazelles. Resource selection functions revealed that gazelles use relatively flat areas (6-15°) disproportionately during both summer and winter, and preferred south-facing slopes and avoided north-facing slopes during winter. Measurements of plant production using exclosures showed that herbivores removed up to 47% of the forage biomass from areas without gazelles, whereas only 29% was removed from areas with gazelles. Although areas selected by gazelles were only marginally more productive than areas not selected, the proportional representation of forbs in plant biomass was significantly higher in the former. Spatial co-occurrence patterns examined using null models revealed a significant negative relationship between distribution of gazelles and goats and sheep, and a significant positive relationship between gazelles and wild kiang Equus kiang and domestic yak Bos grunniens. Future in situ recovery programmes for the Tibetan gazelle in Ladakh need to focus on securing livestock-free, forb-dominated areas, with participation from the local pastoral community.

Type
Papers
Information
Oryx , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 107 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna and Flora International 2008

Introduction

Understanding the factors that influence the distribution and abundance of species is a fundamental theme in ecology (Andrewartha & Birch, Reference Andrewartha and Birch1954). These factors or determinants of niche space operate in a hierarchical manner, ranging from microsites to broad climatic regimes (Forman, Reference Forman1964). Knowledge of factors that influence habitat choice by animals, such as selection of vegetation patches, have assisted conservation planning and reserve design for metapopulation persistence (Lindenmayer, Reference Lindenmayer2000). Broad-scale distribution patterns of large mammalian herbivores are determined mainly by abiotic factors within which biotic mechanisms operate (Olff et al., Reference Olff, Ritchie and Prins2002). Herbivores are important components of many terrestrial ecosystems and human interventions are causing extinctions and major changes in composition of herbivore-assemblages across the world (Frank et al., Reference Frank, McNaughton and Tracy1998; Olff et al., Reference Olff, Ritchie and Prins2002).

The Trans-Himalaya, encompassing the Tibetan plateau and its marginal mountains, is one such ecosystem where pastoralism is altering native herbivore assemblages (Mishra et al., Reference Mishra, van Wieren, Heitkonig and Prins2002). Ladakh is the western extension of this unique high altitude Tibetan ecosystem, and harbours a diverse assemblage of eight wild ungulate species. Compared to the records of the 19th century explorers (Burrard, Reference Burrard1925) the current populations of these ungulates are low, probably resulting from past hunting and habitat degradation associated with increasing livestock populations (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Nurbu and Chundawat1991; Schaller, Reference Schaller1998).

One of the most threatened species is the small-sized, ruminant, Tibetan gazelle Procapra picticaudata (c. 15 kg), whose range once covered c. 20,000 km2 in Ladakh (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Nurbu and Chundawat1991). The species is categorized globally as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2007) but it is on the brink of extinction in Ladakh, with <100 animals remaining in an area of c. 100 km2 in the Hanle Valley of Eastern Ladakh (Bhatnagar et al., Reference Bhatnagar, Mishra and Wangchuk2006a) and its population is also declining on the Tibetan plateau (Schaller, Reference Schaller1998; Xia et al., Reference Xia, Yang, Li, Wu and Feng2007). Despite the ban on its hunting in India, gazelle populations continue to decline, presumably because of intensified livestock grazing (Bhatnagar et al., Reference Bhatnagar, Mishra and Wangchuk2006a). The Hanle valley is an important production centre of pashmina or cashmere, a world-renowned fibre, and the population of the goats that produce it is increasing (Namgail et al., Reference Namgail, Bhatnagar, Mishra and Bagchi2007a). However, forage limitation (Bagchi et al., Reference Bagchi, Mishra and Bhatnagar2004; Mishra et al., Reference Mishra, van Wieren, Ketner, Heitkonig and Prins2004) and interference competition (Namgail et al., Reference Namgail, Fox and Bhatnagar2007b) from increasing livestock populations have probably caused local extinctions of native ungulates (Mishra et al., Reference Mishra, van Wieren, Heitkonig and Prins2002), and thus the issue of competition between gazelle and domestic livestock requires careful examination.

Here we examine the factors influencing the distribution of the largest known population of Tibetan gazelle in India. These data are relevant for developing a much needed in situ recovery programme for the species (Bhatnagar et al., Reference Bhatnagar, Mishra and Wangchuk2006a). We focused on understanding (1) the influence of terrain and vegetation characteristics on habitat choice by the gazelle, and (2) the nature of the interactions between gazelles and sympatric wild and domestic ungulates. We discuss the implications of our work for starting an in situ recovery programme.

Study area

The basin of the Hanle River, which is a major tributary of the Indus River (Fig. 1), is charcterized by low precipitation (200-400 mm), low temperatures (–30 to 25oC), and high elevations (4,700-5,100 m). Plant growth is confined to a short period (May-August) and vegetation is dry-alpine steppe with grasses, sedges, forbs and small shrubs (Bagchi et al., Reference Bagchi, Namgail and Ritchie2006). Besides gazelles, kiang Equus kiang (mean adult body mass 275 kg) also occur at an estimated density of 0.56 km2 (Bhatnagar et al., Reference Bhatnagar, Wangchuk, Prins, van Wieren and Mishra2006b). About 2,000 goats and sheep (25-30 kg) belonging to local nomadic herders also use the area of Kalak Tartar in the Hanle valley for a period of c. 30 days in early summer before they move upstream; lack of potable water curtails this grazing period. However, they return to the area in winter, with yaks, goats and sheep, following snowfall (Bhatnagar et al., Reference Bhatnagar, Mishra and Wangchuk2006a). Kiang use the area throughout the year alongside gazelles.

Fig. 1 Location of the study area in the Hanle valley, eastern Ladakh, showing the area with gazelles and also the two areas without gazelles that were sampled for vegetation cover and productivity. The inset indicates the location of the main figure in India.

Methods

Data for estimating gazelle habitat use were collected from direct sightings. Habitat variables such as slope angle, aspect and elevation were recorded at the animals’ locations during summer (May-August 2004) and winter (January-March 2005). Habitat affinities were assessed by the selection ratio (ratio of habitat use and availability) following Manly et al. (Reference Manly, McDonald, Thomas, McDonald and Erickson2002). The proportion of available habitat was determined from 51 random locations (Marcum & Loftsgaarden, Reference Marcum and Loftsgaarden1980). All variables were classified into categories, and the selection ratio and standard error were calculated for each category. The log-likelihood χ2 statistic was used to test for habitat selection (Manly et al., Reference Manly, McDonald, Thomas, McDonald and Erickson2002). In case of habitat selection, 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each habitat category as ŵi + Zα/(2I) SE(ŵi), where I is the number of habitat categories and SE(ŵi) is the standard error of the selection ratio. A habitat is used selectively if the confidence limits exclude unity. Under positive selection (preference) the interval is >1, and under negative selection (avoidance) it is <1.

From the presence/absence of gazelle pellets in randomly located plots as well as from direct sightings of animals during May-June 2004, we delineated areas that were selected by gazelles (of c. 45-50 km2), and two adjacent areas (Fig. 1) without gazelle (of c. 40-45 km2). To assess the difference between these two areas in vegetation cover during summer (June-August), we recorded the plant species or any other substrate at every 0.5 m interval along a 20 m transect (n = 38 in each area). We also investigated the difference in above-ground net primary productivity between these areas with 2*2 m exclosures (n = 7 in the area with gazelle and n = 5 in the areas without gazelle). We paired these exclosures with 2-m adjacent control plots (i.e. grazed and ungrazed) at the beginning of the growth season (May). At the end of the growth season (August), vegetation was clipped to ground level from two 1*1 m quadrats in each exclosure and control plot.

Tibetan gazelle are known to feed preferentially on forbs (Schaller, Reference Schaller1998). Such small ruminants rely on high-quality forage (van Soest, Reference van Soest1982) and fermentation of forbs is more viable compared to grasses (Foley & Cork, Reference Foley and Cork1992; Iason & van Wieren, Reference Iason, van Wieren, Olff, Brown and Drent1999). Therefore, we sorted plant biomass from the areas with and without gazelle into two functional groups: graminoids and forbs (herbs and small shrubs) and oven-dried them to obtain dry weights. We also assessed grazing intensity in the two areas from the difference in biomass between fenced and control plots, and compared the data from the two areas with General Linear Models, using SAS v. 9.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, USA). Data are presented as ± SE and statistical significance adjudged at α = 0.05 in all cases.

We recorded spatial distribution of gazelles in different pastures of the Kalak Tartar area using pellet counts (Neff, Reference Neff1968) in 123 randomly located 5*10 m quadrats in the area with gazelle. The influence of sympatric ungulates (goats, sheep, yak and kiang) on the spatial distribution of gazelle was assessed using data on the presence or absence of their faecal pellets in plots, which were compared to a null model following Bagchi et al. (Reference Bagchi, Mishra and Bhatnagar2004). Faecal pellets of gazelle (average length 9.4 ± SE 1.7 mm) are visibly smaller and easily distinguishable from those of adult goats and sheep (13.7 ± SE 1.8 mm; Bhatnagar et al., Reference Bhatnagar, Mishra and Wangchuk2006a). Confusion with the faeces of juvenile goats and sheep was precluded because young and juveniles are herded separately near the pastoral camps. However, we did not distinguish between pellets of goats and sheep, and considered them as one group. Plot-based co-occurrence between gazelles and other species was assessed by calculating the C-score index as Cij = (ri-S)(rj-S), where ri is the number of plots with species i and rj is the number of plots with species j, with S being the number of shared sites (Stone & Roberts, Reference Stone and Roberts1990). This measures the tendency of any two species not to co-occur in the same plot, with larger values indicating greater separation between them. Deviation of observed C-scores due to chance was assessed by Monte Carlo simulations using Ecosim 6.10 (Gotelli & Entsminger, Reference Gotelli and Entsminger2001). In this null-model, species were assigned randomly to plots (1,000 iterations) so that occurrence of one species was independent of others.

Results

Sixty-three observations were made of gazelles during summer, and 30 during winter. Gazelles used relatively flat areas (6-15°) disproportionately during both summer and winter . They preferred south-facing slopes and avoided north-facing slopes during winter . There was a weak preference for lower areas (4,751-4,900 m) in winter , whereas relatively higher areas were avoided during both summer and winter within the available altitudinal range (Table 1).

Table 1 Estimated seasonal habitat selection indices (see text for details) for the Tibetan gazelle in the Hanle Valley, Ladakh, India.

1 ŵi, estimated habitat selection ratio; SE(ŵi) SE of selection ratio; ŵi(l) and ŵi(u) 95% lower and upper confidence limits, respectively

2 Inference less reliable because of few observations

3 Preference;

4 Avoidance (see methods for further details)

Five species of graminoids and 17 forbs were recorded. Plots in the area with gazelle had higher overall vegetation cover (45.2 ± SE 1%) than those in the area without gazelle (27.2 ± SE 1%; F 1,75 = 133.3, P <0.001). Net above-ground primary productivity was marginally higher in the gazelle area (38.7 ± 2 g m−2) compared to (29.5 ± 2 g m−2) the area without gazelles (F 1,10 = 4.67, P = 0.056). After accounting for correlation between forb biomass and total biomass (R = 0.69, P = 0.01) we found a significantly higher proportion of forbs in the gazelle area compared to the non-gazelle area (ANCOVA, F 1,9 = 6.65, P = 0.02). Comparisons of fenced and control plots showed that 47 ± SE 6 % of plant biomass was consumed by herbivores (wild and domestic) in areas outside gazelle range, whereas only 29 ± SE 5% was consumed in plots inside the area with gazelle (F 1,10 = 5.05, P = 0.04).

Of the 123 plots, gazelle dung pellets were recorded in 38%, that of kiang in 45%, of yak in 34%, and of goats and sheep in 71%. Pair-wise comparisons showed that co-occurrence of gazelles and goats and sheep was significantly lower than expected by chance, whereas gazelle tended to co-occur with kiang and domestic yak (Table 2).

Table 2 Spatial co-occurrence, measured by the C-score index (Stone & Roberts, Reference Stone and Roberts1990), of the Tibetan gazelle with sympatric livestock and kiang in the Kalak Tartar area of Ladakh, India. All values were significantly different (P <0.01) from random as adjudged by a null-model.

1 Avoidance;

2 Co-occurrence (see text for details)

Discussion

Many native ungulates of the Trans-Himalaya have a long co-evolutionary history (Schaller, Reference Schaller1977, Reference Schaller1998) and exhibit resource partitioning under sympatry (Namgail et al., Reference Namgail, Fox and Bhatnagar2004). In comparison, domestic livestock have been introduced relatively recently (1,000-3,000 years ago, Goldstein & Beal, Reference Goldstein and Beal1990) and their interactions with native species are more likely to be competitive. Our data suggest that gazelles have a predominantly competitive relationship with small-sized goats and sheep, and a possible indirect facilitative interaction with large-sized wild kiang and domestic, but native, yak (facilitation through habitat modification; Vesey-Fitzgerald, Reference Vesey-Fitzgerald1960; Bell, Reference Bell1971). However, because our data on co-occurrence patterns are based on distribution of pellet-groups there could be potential bias if gazelles maintain latrine sites, although we encountered gazelle pellets throughout the study area.

The negative relationship between the distribution of gazelle and domestic goats and sheep at localized scales in the study area is in contrast to patterns observed at regional scales on the Tibetan plateau where the species’ encounter rate is higher in areas with relatively high livestock presence (Fox & Bårdsen, Reference Fox and Bårdsen2005). This discrepancy could be related to the difference in the spatial scales between the two studies, and the indices used for livestock presence. More specifically, although gazelle and livestock may co-occur at a regional scale, they may segregate at the habitat level as found in our study. Comparative data from the Tibetan plateau collected at finer scales could clarify this further.

Forage competition between livestock and wild herbivores in the Trans-Himalaya is increasingly being documented (Bagchi et al., Reference Bagchi, Mishra and Bhatnagar2004; Mishra et al., Reference Mishra, van Wieren, Ketner, Heitkonig and Prins2004). Estimates show that large herds of goats and sheep, as in our study area, can consume >200 kg of forage per day (dry weight) of which 50-55% can be forbs (Bagchi et al., Reference Bagchi, Mishra and Bhatnagar2004). Gazelles depend on high-quality forage (forbs) compared to fibrous forage (grasses, Foley & Cork, Reference Foley and Cork1992; Iason & van Wieren, Reference Iason, van Wieren, Olff, Brown and Drent1999), with 70-90% of their diet consisting of forbs (Harris & Miller, Reference Harris and Miller1995; Schaller, Reference Schaller1998; Miller & Schaller, Reference Miller, Schaller and Stellrecht1998). This constraint on smaller bodied ungulates such as the Tibetan gazelle arises because metabolic requirements (M) scale as M ∝ B3/4 of the body-mass (B), whereas the gut-capacity (G) varies as G ∝ B1 (Demment & van Soest, Reference Demment and van Soest1985). These allometric relationships make smaller ruminants such as the gazelle dependant on forbs. Therefore, high rates of removal of forbs by livestock can disproportionately affect gazelles. Additionally, goats and sheep are husbanded in large herds, and are accompanied by herders and guard dogs that may cause direct disturbance and interference competition (Namgail et al., Reference Namgail, Fox and Bhatnagar2007b). On the other hand, bulk-feeding on graminoids by kiang and yak (58-95% of their diet; Schaller, Reference Schaller1998; Mishra et al., Reference Mishra, van Wieren, Ketner, Heitkonig and Prins2004) could potentially favour the growth of forbs and attract gazelles into such areas.

Our data and analyses provide an improved understanding of the ecological requirements of the Tibetan gazelle at a critical time when the species is threatened with local extinction in Ladakh. The habitat characteristics required by the Tibetan gazelle, as outlined here, can be used to identify potentially suitable gazelle habitat in areas adjoining Kalak Tartar. Once identified, these areas need to be relieved of livestock pressures to facilitate colonization by gazelles. Acquisition and protection of even small-sized patches can be of high conservation importance (Berger, Reference Berger2003). We have initiated this process by organizing workshops with the Wildlife Protection Department and local nomads to communicate our research results and initiate the formulation of strategies for a recovery programme for the Tibetan gazelle (Bhatnagar et al., Reference Bhatnagar, Seth, Takpa, Ul-Haq, Namgail, Bagchi and Mishra2007).

Acknowledgements

We thank the Rufford Foundation, the Whitley Fund for Nature, and the Ford Foundation for supporting our work. Additional support came from the Wildlife Conservation Society (to TN) and Syracuse University (to SB). We thank C.M. Seth, Jigmet Takpa and Salim Ul-Haq of the Department of Wildlife Protection, M.P. Singh, Dorjey, Tsewang and Sanjeev of the Indian Astrophysics Observatory, and Tsetan Paljor and Angdus of Hanle for their support. R. Raghunath helped in preparing the map.

Biographical sketches

Tsewang Namgail and Sumanta Bagchi are studying the ecology of mountain ungulates and rangeland dynamics in the Trans-Himalayan mountains, and both are involved in community-based conservation initiatives in the region. Charudutt Mishra and Yash Veer Bhatnagar study various aspects of high altitude ecology, including grazing systems and human-wildlife conflicts, run community-based conservation programmes, and work on conservation policy development.

References

Andrewartha, H.G. & Birch, L.C. (1954) The Distribution and Abundance of Animals. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
Bagchi, S., Mishra, C. & Bhatnagar, Y.V. (2004) Conflicts between traditional pastoralism and conservation of Himalayan ibex (Capra sibirica) in the Trans-Himalayan mountains. Animal Conservation, 7, 121128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagchi, S., Namgail, T. & Ritchie, M.E. (2006) Small mammalian herbivores as mediators of plant community dynamics in the high-altitude arid rangelands of Trans-Himalaya. Biological Conservation, 127, 438442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, R.H.V. (1971) A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti. Scientific American, 224, 8693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J. (2003) Is it acceptable to let a species go extinct in a national park? Conservation Biology, 17, 14511454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatnagar, Y.V., Mishra, C. & Wangchuk, R. (2006a) Decline of the Tibetan gazelle in Ladakh. Oryx, 40, 229232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatnagar, Y.V., Seth, C.M., Takpa, J., Ul-Haq, S., Namgail, T., Bagchi, S. & Mishra, C. (2007) A Strategy for Conservation of Tibetan Gazelle Procapra picticaudata in Ladakh. Conservation and Society, 5, 262276.Google Scholar
Bhatnagar, Y.V., Wangchuk, R., Prins, H.H.T., van Wieren, S.E. & Mishra, C. (2006b) Perceived conflicts between pastoralism and conservation of the kiang Equus kiang in the Ladakh Trans-Himalaya, India. Environmental Management, 38, 934941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burrard, G. (1925) Big Game Hunting in the Himalayas and Tibet. Herbert Jenkins, London, UK.Google Scholar
Demment, M.L. & van Soest, P.J. (1985) A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and non-ruminant herbivores. American Naturalist, 125, 641675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, W.J. & Cork, S.J. (1992) Use of fibrous diets by small herbivores: how far can the rules be bent? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 159162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forman, R.T. (1964) Growth under controlled conditions to explain the hierarchical distributions of a moss Tetraphis pellucida. Ecological Monographs, 34, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.L. & Bårdsen, B.J. (2005) Density of Tibetan antelope, Tibetan wild ass and Tibetan gazelle in relation to human presence across the Chang Tang Nature Reserve of Tibet, China. Acta Zoologica Sinica, 51, 586597.Google Scholar
Fox, J.L., Nurbu, C. & Chundawat, R.S. (1991) The mountain ungulates of Ladakh, India. Biological Conservation, 58, 167190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, D.A., McNaughton, S.J. & Tracy, B.F. (1998) The ecology of the earth's grazing ecosystems. BioScience, 48, 513521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, M. & Beal, C. (1990) Nomads of Western Tibet. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, USA.Google Scholar
Gotelli, N.J. & Entsminger, G.L. (2001) EcoSim: Null Models Software for Ecology, version 7.0. Http://homepages.together.net/~gentsmin/ecosim.htm [accessed 5 September 2007].Google Scholar
Harris, R.B. & Miller, D.J. (1995) Overlap in summer diets of Tibetan plateau ungulates. Mammalia, 59, 197212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iason, G.R. & van Wieren, S.E. (1999) Digestive and ingestive adaptation of herbivores to low-quality forage. In Herbivores: Between Plants and Predators (eds Olff, H., Brown, V.K. & Drent, R.H.), pp. 337369. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
IUCN (2007) 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Http://www.iucnredlist.org [accessed 28 September 2007].Google Scholar
Lindenmayer, D.B. (2000) Factors at multiple scales affecting distribution patterns and their implication for animal conservation - Leadbeater's possum as a case study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9, 1535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manly, B.F.J., McDonald, L.L., Thomas, D.L., McDonald, T.L. & Erickson, W.P. (2002) Resource Selection by Animals: Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Marcum, C.L. & Loftsgaarden, D.O. (1980) A nonmapping technique for studying habitat preferences. Journal of Wildlife Management, 44, 963969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D.J. & Schaller, G.B. (1998) Rangeland dynamics in the Chang Tang Wildlife Reserve, Tibet. In Karakorum-Hindukush-Himalaya: Dynamics of Change (ed. Stellrecht, I.), pp. 125147. Rudiger Koppe Verlag, Koln, Germany.Google Scholar
Mishra, C., van Wieren, S.E., Heitkonig, I.M.A. & Prins, H.H.T. (2002) A theoretical analysis of competitive exclusion in Trans-Himalayan large herbivore assemblage. Animal Conservation, 5, 251258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, C., van Wieren, S.E., Ketner, P., Heitkonig, I.M.A. & Prins, H.H.T. (2004) Competition between livestock and bharal Pseudois nayaur in the Indian Trans-Himalaya. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 344354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namgail, T., Bhatnagar, Y.V., Mishra, C. & Bagchi, S. (2007a) Pastoral nomads of the Indian Changthang: production system, landuse and socio-economic changes. Human Ecology, 35, 497504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namgail, T., Fox, J.L. & Bhatnagar, Y.V. (2004) Habitat segregation between sympatric Tibetan argali Ovis ammon hodgsoni and blue sheep Pseudois nayaur in the Indian Trans-Himalaya. Journal of Zoology, 262, 5763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namgail, T., Fox, J.L. & Bhatnagar, Y.V. (2007b) Habitat shift and time budget of the Tibetan argali: the influence of livestock grazing. Ecological Research, 22, 2531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, D.J. (1968) The Pellet group count technique for big game census and distribution: a review. Journal of Wildlife Management, 32, 597614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olff, H., Ritchie, M.E. & Prins, H.H.T. (2002) Global environmental determinants of diversity in large herbivores. Nature, 415, 901905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, G.B. (1977) Mountain Monarchs: Wild Goat and Sheep of the Himalaya. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
Schaller, G.B. (1998) Wildlife of the Tibetan Steppe. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
Stone, L. & Roberts, A. (1990) The checkerboard score and species distributions. Oecologia, 85, 7479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Soest, P.J. (1982) Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. O & B Books, Corvallis, USA.Google Scholar
Vesey-Fitzgerald, D.F. (1960) Grazing succession among East African game animals. Journal of Mammalogy, 41, 161172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xia, L., Yang, Q., Li, Z., Wu, Y. & Feng, Z. (2007) The effect of the Qinghai-Tibet railway on the migration of Tibetan antelope Pantholops hodgsonii in Hoh-xil National Nature Reserve China. Oryx, 41, 352357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Location of the study area in the Hanle valley, eastern Ladakh, showing the area with gazelles and also the two areas without gazelles that were sampled for vegetation cover and productivity. The inset indicates the location of the main figure in India.

Figure 1

Table 1 Estimated seasonal habitat selection indices (see text for details) for the Tibetan gazelle in the Hanle Valley, Ladakh, India.

Figure 2

Table 2 Spatial co-occurrence, measured by the C-score index (Stone & Roberts, 1990), of the Tibetan gazelle with sympatric livestock and kiang in the Kalak Tartar area of Ladakh, India. All values were significantly different (P <0.01) from random as adjudged by a null-model.

You have Access
18
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Distributional correlates of the Tibetan gazelle Procapra picticaudata in Ladakh, northern India: towards a recovery programme
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Distributional correlates of the Tibetan gazelle Procapra picticaudata in Ladakh, northern India: towards a recovery programme
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Distributional correlates of the Tibetan gazelle Procapra picticaudata in Ladakh, northern India: towards a recovery programme
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *