2022
DOI: 10.1002/eap.2644
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of free‐ranging livestock on occurrence and interspecific interactions of a mammalian community

Abstract: This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, because these locations may be less suitable for prey species, we chose to discard their records from the occupancy analysis. Conversely, activity may be considered relatively independent from the terrain used and, therefore, indications on activity rhythms may be inferred (e.g., Salvatori et al 2021 , 2022 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, because these locations may be less suitable for prey species, we chose to discard their records from the occupancy analysis. Conversely, activity may be considered relatively independent from the terrain used and, therefore, indications on activity rhythms may be inferred (e.g., Salvatori et al 2021 , 2022 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Occupancy of all species increased with the increase in distance from human settlement except for Yellow‐throated marten. The increase in occupancy of all species with the increase in distance from human settlement generally relates to the increase of anthropogenic disturbance as human settlements offer different threats to wildlife like poaching as well as guard dogs (Cavada et al, 2019 ; Salvatori et al, 2022 ; Schuette et al, 2013 ). The decrease in occupancy of species with proximity to the settlement due to the hunting and poaching pressure is rather common observation in case of ungulates (Soh et al, 2014 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During 2020 surveys majority of the leopard faecal samples were obtained from the buffer regions of the park, which are not prime habitats in terms of prey abundances (Harihar et al, 2020). The southern buffer and Gohri range of ERTR (see Figure 1) supports lower prey densities (25.24 individuals/ km 2 ) than the core areas (39.23 individuals/ km 2 ) (Harihar et al 2020) and still hosts human settlements and livestock that exert heavy pressure on forest resources (Johnsingh et al, 1994; Harihar et al, 2014; Harihar et al, 2020) and affects the ungulates population density by hindering the forest resource availability to wild prey species (Rasal et al, 2022; Salvatori et al, 2022; Pozo et al, 2021). An alternate explanation behind such pattern could be leopard prey preferences for the medium to small bodied prey size class (Pokheral & Wegge 2019; Karanth & Sunquist 1995), but the natural experimental setup (presence of tiger in ERTR and not in WRTR) allowed us to confirm the effects of competition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%