Habitat preference and feeding ecology of alpine musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttarakhand, India
Zarreen Syed A and Orus Ilyas B C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India.
B Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, 202002, India.
C Corresponding author. Email: orus16@gmail.com
Animal Production Science 56(6) 978-987 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN141028
Submitted: 26 December 2014 Accepted: 30 April 2015 Published: 22 June 2015
Abstract
The alpine musk deer, Moschus chrysogaster, a small member of family Moschidae, is a primitive deer threatened due to poaching and habitat loss, and therefore classified as Endangered by IUCN and also listed in Appendix I of CITES. Although the species is legally protected in India under Wildlife Protection Act 1972, conservation of the species requires better understanding of its distribution and resource-use pattern; therefore, a study on its feeding and habitat ecology was conducted from February 2011 to February 2014, at Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary. The Sanctuary is one of the known remaining habitats for musk deer in India. Four locations, namely, Shokhark I, Shokhark II, Tungnath and Chandrashila, were intensively monitored and further categorised on the basis of habitats and altitudinal gradient. The habitat overlap between musk deer and all other ungulate species of the area was calculated through Pianka’s overlap index. The results indicated a large overlap between musk deer and Himalayan tahr. Species dietary spectra were studied using microhistological techniques for faecal pellet-group analysis coupled with Bonferroni approach. The dicotyledon to monocotyledon ratios were found to be 73.62–26.38% and 52.016– 47.984% in the pre- and post-monsoon seasons, respectively. The study showed that the musk deer is predominantly a browser. The most preferred plant species of the animals were found to be Gaultheria trichophylla, Ophiopogon intermedius., Cyperus sp. and Sibbaldia cuneata. During the field survey, opportunistic sightings of the species were also recorded. The species was found to be restricted to areas where the density of preferred vegetation was high. Therefore, it is recommended to provide strict protection to the areas such as Shokhark.
Additional keywords: feeding habit, habitat overlap, microhistology.
References
Alipayo D, Valdez R, Holechek JL, Cardenas M (1992) Evaluation of microhistological analysis for determining ruminant diet botanical composition. Journal of Range Management 45, 148–152.| Evaluation of microhistological analysis for determining ruminant diet botanical composition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Awasthi A, Uniyal SK, Rawat GS, Sathyakumar S (2003) Food plants and feedinghabits of Himalayan ungulates. Current Science 85, 719–723.
Bagchi S, Goyal SP, Sankar K (2003a) Habitat separation among ungulates in dry tropical forests of Ranthambore national park, Rajasthan. Tropical Ecology 44, 177–183.
Bagchi S, Goyal SP, Sankar K (2003b) Niche relationships of an ungulate assemblage in dry tropical forests. Journal of Mammalogy 84, 981–988.
| Niche relationships of an ungulate assemblage in dry tropical forests.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baumgartner LL, Martin AC (1939) Plant histology as an aid in squirrel food-habits studies. The Journal of Wildlife Management 3, 266–268.
| Plant histology as an aid in squirrel food-habits studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bhat JA, Kumar M, Bussmann RW (2013) Ecological status and traditional knowledge of medicinal plants in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary of Garhwal Hiamalaya, India. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9, 1–18.
| Ecological status and traditional knowledge of medicinal plants in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary of Garhwal Hiamalaya, India.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23281594PubMed |
CITES (2003) Official documents appendices I, II and III. In ‘Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora’. Available at www.cites.org/eng/append/latest_appendices.shtml.[Accessed 22 December 2014]
Dar TA, Habib B, Khan JA (2012) Group size, habitat use and overlap analysis of four sympatric ungulate species in Shivalik ecosystem, Uttarakhand, India. Mammalia 76, 31–41.
| Group size, habitat use and overlap analysis of four sympatric ungulate species in Shivalik ecosystem, Uttarakhand, India.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dearden BL, Pepu RE, Hansen RM (1975) Precision of microhistologicalestimates of ruminant food habits. The Journal of Wildlife Management 39, 402–407.
| Precision of microhistologicalestimates of ruminant food habits.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Denham AH (1965) In vitro fermentation studies on native sandhill range forage as related to cattle preference. MSc Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Eames AJ, MacDaniels LH (1947) ‘An introduction to plant anatomy.’ (McGraw-Hill: New York)
Esau K (1960) ‘Anatomy of seed plants.’ (John Wiley: New York)
Fowler J, Cohen L (1986) ‘Statistics for ornithologist. BTO buide No. 22.’ (British Trust of Ornithology: Hertfordshire, UK)
Green MJB (1985) Aspects of ecology of the Himalayan musk deer. PhD Thesis, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
Green MJB (1986) The birds of Kedarnath Sanctuary, Chamoli district, Uttar Pradesh:status and distribution. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 83, 603–617.
Green MJB (1986a) The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster). Biological Conservation 35, 347–375.
| The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Green MJB (1987) Diet composition and quality in Himalayan musk deer based on fecal analysis. The Journal of Wildlife Management 51, 880–892.
| Diet composition and quality in Himalayan musk deer based on fecal analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hanley TA (1996) Potential role of deer (Cervidae) as ecological indicators of forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 88, 199–204.
| Potential role of deer (Cervidae) as ecological indicators of forest management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Holechek JL, Vavra M, Pieper RD (1982) Botanical composition determination of range herbivore diets: a review. Journal of Range Management 35, 309–315.
| Botanical composition determination of range herbivore diets: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ilyas O (2007) Status, conservation and aspects of ecology of musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in Kumaon and Garhwal Himalayas, Uttranchal, India. Final technical report of DST funded project, AMU, Aligarh, India.
Ilyas O, Khan JA (2004) Food habits of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak muntjak) and goral (Nemorhaedus goral bedfordi) in Binsar Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Mammalia 67, 521–531.
Ilyas O, Khan JA, Khan A (2003) Status, abundance and factors governing distribution of ungulates in Kumaon Himalayas, UP, India. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 29, 123–127.
IUCN (2014) ‘IUCN red list of threatened species. 2014.3.’ Available at www.iucnredlist.org/search [Verified 12 December 2014]
Jarman PJ (1974) The social organisation of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48, 215–267.
| The social organisation of antelope in relation to their ecology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kushwaha SPS, Roy PS (2002) Geospatial technology for wildlife habitat evaluation. Tropical Ecology 43, 137–150.
Leopold BD, Krausman PR (1987) Diurnal activity patterns of desert mule deer in relation to temperature. The Texas Journal of Science 39, 49–53.
Leslie DM, Vavra M, Edward ES, Slater RC (1983) Correcting for differential digestibility in microhistological analyses involving common coastal forages of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Range Management 36, 730–732.
| Correcting for differential digestibility in microhistological analyses involving common coastal forages of the Pacific Northwest.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McInnis ML, Vavra M, Krueger WC (1983) A comparison of four methods used to determine the diets of large herbivores. Journal of Range Management 36, 302–306.
| A comparison of four methods used to determine the diets of large herbivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Neu WC, Byers CR, Peek JM (1974) A technique for analysis of utilization-availability data. The Journal of Wildlife Management 38, 541–545.
| A technique for analysis of utilization-availability data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Otis DL (1997) Analysis of habitat selection studies with multiple patches within cover types. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61, 1016–1022.
| Analysis of habitat selection studies with multiple patches within cover types.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pande PK, Negi JDS, Sharma SC (2001) Plant species diversity and vegetation analysis in a moist temperate Himalayan forest. Indian Journal of Forestry 24, 456–470.
Pianka ER (1973) The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 53–74.
| The structure of lizard communities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sathyakumar S (1991) Behaviour of captive Himalayan musk deer. Zoo’s Print 6, 1–3.
Sathyakumar S (1992) The musk deer. Sanctuary Asia 12, 52–57.
Sathyakumar S (1994) Habitat ecology of ungulates in Kedarnath Musk Deer Sanctuary, Western Himalaya. PhD Thesis, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, India.
Sathyakumar S, Prasad SN, Rawat GS, Johnsingh AJT (1993a) Conservation status of Himalayan musk deer in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Himalaya. In ‘High altitudes of the Himalaya’. (Eds YPS Pangtey, RS Rawal) pp. 240–245. (Gyanodaya Prakashan: Nainital, India)
Sathyakumar S, Johnsingh AJT, Rawat GS, Prasad SN (1994) Habitat ecology of major ungulates in Kedarnath Musk Deer Sanctuary, Western Himalaya. Final report, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
Schoener TW (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185, 27–39.
| Resource partitioning in ecological communities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3cvgslehtQ%3D%3D&md5=3923b9a446841fe5f8b2cfb055025b79CAS | 17779277PubMed |
Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Naturalist 122, 240–285.
| Field experiments on interspecific competition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Semwal JK, Gaur RD (1981) Alpine flora of Tungnath in Garhwal Himalaya. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 78, 498–512.
Singh AP (2009) Butterflies of Kedarnath Musk Deer Reserve, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1, 37–48.
| Butterflies of Kedarnath Musk Deer Reserve, Garhwal Himalaya, India.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3M%2FjslygtQ%3D%3D&md5=a90595a6b08db257698faa9b68f91dfbCAS |
Sparks DR, Malechek JC (1968) Estimating percentage dry weight in diets using a microscopic technique. Journal of Range Management 21, 264–285.
| Estimating percentage dry weight in diets using a microscopic technique.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Toft CA (1985) Resource partitioning in amphibians and reptiles. Copeia 1–21.
| Resource partitioning in amphibians and reptiles.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vavra M, Holechek JL (1980) Factors influencing microhistological analysis of herbivores diet. Journal of Range Management 33, 371–374.
| Factors influencing microhistological analysis of herbivores diet.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vavra M, Rice RW, Hansen RM (1978) A comparison of esophageal fistula and fecal material to determine steer diets. Journal of Range Management 3l, l1–l13.
Whitfield J (2002) Neutrality versus the niche. Nature 417, 480–481.
| Neutrality versus the niche.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XktVehsb0%3D&md5=d1c856b9d6c01c877a866e32a9970829CAS | 12037536PubMed |
Zar JH (1999) ‘Biostatistical analysis.’ 4th edn. (Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ)
