Habitat preference indicators for striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena) in Nepal

Bhandari, Shivish; Bhusal, Daya Ram; Psaralexi, Maria; Sgardelis, Stefanos P.

doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01619

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are consistent with the general perception that in India, the hyena is recognised as low-risk species compared to other large carnivores and can coexist with humans in a shared landscape [ 22 ]. Our results are similar to other studies on habitat selection of hyenas from India [ 30 , 31 , 59 ], Nepal [ 76 ], and Africa [ 20 ], which found the distance from the human settlement as the significant indicator for hyena detection due to foraging opportunities [ 30 , 31 , 77 ]. Hyenas feed easily on domestic waste in slaughterhouses, garbage dumps, livestock carcasses, and poultry farms [ 30 , 78 , 79 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Scrublands are treated as ‘wastelands’, and people diverted them for commercial use and converted them into agriculture [ 82 ]. Hyena prefers open or thorn habitats in arid and semiarid environments [ 32 , 76 , 83 ], and the presence of the hyena may have been associated with such habitats because hyenas used scrubland for movement. Habitat use studies indicate the distance to the water body and riverine habitat found important factors for site use by hyenas [ 76 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hyena prefers open or thorn habitats in arid and semiarid environments [ 32 , 76 , 83 ], and the presence of the hyena may have been associated with such habitats because hyenas used scrubland for movement. Habitat use studies indicate the distance to the water body and riverine habitat found important factors for site use by hyenas [ 76 ]. Our results generally agree with this pattern in the area both humans and hyenas temporally used the same water resources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our study area, people’s attitude towards hyenas was positive, and locals reported no conflict and active livestock predation as they considered the hyena a scavenger. Previous studies reported forest cover and scrubland as important factors for hyena detection [ 31 , 76 ]. We found that these habitat variables were negatively associated with hyena site use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

High striped hyena density suggests coexistence with humans in an agricultural landscape, Rajasthan

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the mechanism of coexistence, where carnivores adapt to humans and vice versa in the shared landscape, is a key determinant of long-term carnivore conservation but is yet to be comprehensively examined. We explored the coexistence mechanism of striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena) and humans in the shared landscape of Sawai Mansingh Wildlife Sanctuary (SMS WLS), Rajasthan, from November 2019 to March 2021. We used data derived from motion sensors-based surveys, satellite remote sensing images, and household questionnaires to understand socio-ecological, environmental and anthropogenic factors facilitating hyena persistence in the shared landscape. The high density (12 individuals/100 km2) striped hyena in the landscape revealed the coexistence with humans. Being scavengers, they get subsidised food sources and are perceived as low-risk species by humans. Striped hyena minimised temporal activity during the daytime when human activity peaked. However, the highest activity overlap was observed in the agricultural area (Δ1 = 0.39), and likely depicts the high activity due to agricultural practices. While the human settlement was positively associated with the detection of hyenas, the probability of striped hyena captures increased with decreasing distance from human settlement, possibly influenced by high carcass availability, providing the easiest food resources to striped hyena, and allowing them to coexist with humans. This study demonstrates the coexistence of hyenas and humans in the shared landscape supported by mutual benefits, where hyenas benefit from anthropogenic food from scavenging, while humans benefit from waste removal and the non-lethal nature hyenas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

High striped hyena density suggests coexistence with humans in an agricultural landscape, Rajasthan

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, declining wild ungulates in the natural environment can be the cause of human-carnivore conflict, with predators focusing on domesticated prey that have replaced wild species [ 70 , 71 ]. This might not only affect ungulate distributions, but also alter prey-predator relationships [ 71 , 72 ]. Most of the community forests outside the protected areas systems have to be managed properly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial segregation between wild ungulates and livestock outside protected areas in the lowlands of Nepal

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how wildlife interacts with human activities across non-protected areas are critical for conservation. This is especially true for ungulates that inhabit human-dominated landscapes outside the protected area system in Nepal, where wildlife often coexists with livestock. Here we investigated how elevation, agricultural land, distance from roads, and the relative abundance of livestock (goats, sheep, cow and buffalo) influenced wild ungulate chital (Axis axis), nilgai (Boselaphustrago camelus), wild boar (Sus scrofa) and sambar (Rusa unicolor) abundance and occurrence. We counted all individuals of wild ungulates and livestock along 35 transects conducted between November 2017 and March 2018 in community forests of Bara and Rautahat distracts in the lowlands of Nepal. We assessed abundance and occurrence relation to covariates using Generalized Linear Models. We found that livestock outnumbered wild ungulates 6.6 to 1. Wild boar was the most abundant wild ungulate, followed by nilgai, chital, and sambar. Elevation and livestock abundance were the most important covariates affecting the overall abundance of wild ungulates and the distribution of each individual ungulate species. Our results suggest spatial segregation between wild ungulates, which occur mainly on high grounds (> 300 m.a.s.l.), and livestock that concentrate across low ground habitats (< 300 m.a.s.l.). Our results provide a critical first step to inform conservation in community forest areas of Nepal, where wildlife interacts with people and their livestock. Finding better strategies to allow the coexistence of ungulates with people and their livestock is imperative if they are to persist into the future.

show abstract