Habitat Correlates of the Red Panda in the Temperate Forests of Bhutan

Abstract

Anthropogenic activities and associated global climate change are threatening the biodiversity in the Himalayas against a backdrop of poor knowledge of the region's threatened species. The red panda (Ailurus fulgens) is a threatened mammal confined to the eastern Himalayas, and because of Bhutan's central location in the distributional range of red pandas, its forests are integral to the long-term viability of wild populations. Detailed habitat requirements of the red panda are largely speculative, and there is virtually no ecological information available on this species in Bhutan. Between 2007 and 2009, we established 615 presence/absence plots in a systematic sampling of resident habitat types within Jigme Dorji and Thrumshingla National Parks, Bhutan, to investigate broad and fine-scale red panda habitat associations. Additional locality records of red pandas were obtained from interviewing 664 park residents. Red pandas were generally confined to cool broadleaf and conifer forests from 2,110–4,389 m above sea level (asl), with the majority of records between 2,400–3,700 m asl on south and east-facing slopes. At a finer scale, multivariate analysis revealed that red pandas were strongly associated with old growth Bhutan Fir (Abies densa) forest dominated by a dense cover of Yushania and Arundanaria bamboo with a high density of fallen logs and tree stumps at ground level; a high density of trees, dead snags, and rhododendron shrubs in the mid-storey; and locations that were close to water. Because Bhutan's temperate forests that encompass prime red panda habitat are also integral to human subsistence and socio-economic development, there exists an inadvertent conflict between the needs of people and red pandas. As such, careful sustainable management of Bhutan's temperate forests is necessary if a balance is to be met between the socioeconomic needs of people and the conservation goals for red pandas.

Red panda fine‐scale habitat selection along a Central Himalayan longitudinal gradient

“…Some authors argue that habitats featuring medium levels of bamboo coverage are most suitable for red pandas, as high bamboo coverage increases travel time, requiring the expenditure of additional energy (Hu, ; Kang et al, ). Apart from bamboo, our study suggests that tree canopy coverage, proximity to water sources and species diversity were critical habitat requirements of red panda distribution, similar to the findings of previous studies (Bhatta et al, ; Bista, Shrestha, Sherpa, et al, ; Dorji, Vernes, & Rajaratnam, ; Pradhan et al, ; Thapa et al, ; Williams, ; Yonzon & Hunter, ). However, red pandas responded to these predictors differently in the three longitudinal complexes, suggesting diverse adaptations to physiological, thermoregulatory, and ecological constraints (Fei, Hou, Spotila, Paladino, & Zhang, ; McNab, ; Wang, ).…”

“…Such sites are perhaps important to conserve energy as they do not require long travel for water (Bista, Shrestha, Sherpa, et al, ; Pradhan et al, ). Tall tree branches may facilitate foraging for nutritious parts of bamboo, such as young leaves (Schaller, ; Wei & Zhang, ), and help red pandas avoid encounters with predators (Bista, Shrestha, Sherpa, et al, ; Dorji et al, ; Pradhan et al, ). In central Nepal, red pandas showed positive responses to canopy cover and tree species richness, along with closeness to water sources and shorter trees.…”

Large anthropogenic impacts on a charismatic small carnivore: Insights from distribution surveys of red panda Ailurus fulgens in Nepal

“…Being bamboo specialists, more than 80% of their diet consists of bamboo grass [29–32,54]. Previous studies in this region also have shown strong associations between red panda presence and habitats with understorey cover dominated by bamboo grass [26,53]. Red pandas occur in temperate forests ranging from deciduous broad leaved forests to conifer forests.…”

Ecological correlates of Himalayan musk deer Moschus leucogaster

“…In addition to poaching, the other prevailing threats to musk deer are habitat destruction and degradation (Green, 1986;Ilyas, 2014;Yang et al, 2003). Habitats in the Himalayas are being threatened by anthropogenic pressures such as intensive livestock grazing, fuel wood cutting, fodder collection, establishment of hydropower plants, and road development (Dorji, Vernes, & Rajaratnam, 2011;Grumbine & Pandit, 2013;Thapa, Hu, & Wei, 2018;Vinod & Sathyakumar, 1999). As a result, suitable habitat for musk deer is mainly confined to protected areas with fragmented habitat between reserves.…”