Identifying Conservation Successes, Failures and Future Opportunities; Assessing Recovery Potential of Wild Ungulates and Tigers in Eastern Cambodia

Abstract

Conservation investment, particularly for charismatic and wide-ranging large mammal species, needs to be evidence-based. Despite the prevalence of this theme within the literature, examples of robust data being generated to guide conservation policy and funding decisions are rare. We present the first published case-study of tiger conservation in Indochina, from a site where an evidence-based approach has been implemented for this iconic predator and its prey. Despite the persistence of extensive areas of habitat, Indochina's tiger and ungulate prey populations are widely supposed to have precipitously declined in recent decades. The Seima Protection Forest (SPF), and broader Eastern Plains Landscape, was identified in 2000 as representing Cambodia's best hope for tiger recovery; reflected in its designation as a Global Priority Tiger Conservation Landscape. Since 2005 distance sampling, camera-trapping and detection-dog surveys have been employed to assess the recovery potential of ungulate and tiger populations in SPF. Our results show that while conservation efforts have ensured that small but regionally significant populations of larger ungulates persist, and density trends in smaller ungulates are stable, overall ungulate populations remain well below theoretical carrying capacity. Extensive field surveys failed to yield any evidence of tiger, and we contend that there is no longer a resident population within the SPF. This local extirpation is believed to be primarily attributable to two decades of intensive hunting; but importantly, prey densities are also currently below the level necessary to support a viable tiger population. Based on these results and similar findings from neighbouring sites, Eastern Cambodia does not currently constitute a Tiger Source Site nor meet the criteria of a Global Priority Tiger Landscape. However, SPF retains global importance for many other elements of biodiversity. It retains high regional importance for ungulate populations and potentially in the future for Indochinese tigers, given adequate prey and protection.

“Living a good life”: conceptualizations of well-being in a conservation context in Cambodia

“…Located in the province of Preah Vihear (see Fig. 2), the landscape is considered an area of high biodiversity interest (Myers et al 2000, O'Kelly et al 2012 Most Cambodian protected areas contain human settlements dating from before the boundaries were drawn, and the level of enforcement of protected area rules is generally low (Clements et al 2010). These factors result in unclear property and user rights for the communities living in protected areas, where resource-use rules under Cambodian law allow local uses such as nontimber forest product collection, although forest clearance, commercial logging, and hunting or trade of threatened species are illegal.…”

Density and carrying capacity in the forgotten tigerland: Tigers in the understudied Nepalese Churia

“…Churia habitat within CNP spans 639 km 2 and we predicted the tiger density that could be supported based on the ungulate density and biomass (Karanth et al 2004;O'Kelly et al 2012;Harihar et al 2014). Predicting tiger densities based on preferred prey (sambar and wild pig) potentially yields results describing the carrying capacity of tigers (Hayward et al 2012;Harihar et al 2014).…”

Why do we lose protected areas? Factors influencing protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement in the tropics and subtropics

“…This expansion of the global PA network has, thus far, been largely opportunistic, resulting in patchy, biased and inefficient coverage (Soutullo et al, 2008;Joppa & Pfaff, 2009;Butchart et al, 2012). Moreover, the scientific literature shows equivocal evidence for their efficacy with regard to protecting biodiversity (Rao et al, 2010;Laurance et al, 2012;O'Kelly et al, 2012), reducing habitat loss (Linkie et al, 2008;Geldmann et al, 2013), reducing deforestation (Gaveau et al, 2007;Andam et al, 2008) and maintaining connectivity in the face of climate change (Hole et al, 2009;Minor & Lookingbill, 2010;Mazaris et al, 2013).…”