Land‐sharing potential of large carnivores in human‐modified landscapes of western India

Abstract

The current protected area (PA) network is not sufficient to ensure long‐term persistence of wide‐ranging carnivore populations. Within India, this is particularly the case for species that inhabit nonforested areas since PAs disproportionately over‐represent forested ecosystems. With growing consideration of human‐use landscapes as potential habitats for adaptable large carnivores, India provides a model for studying them in densely populated landscapes, where there is little understanding about human‐carnivore interactions in shared spaces. Using key informant interviews and an occupancy modeling framework, we assessed the distribution of three large carnivore species, the leopard Panthera pardus, Indian grey Wolf Canis lupus pallipes, and striped hyena Hyaena hyaena, across a ~89,000 km2 semiarid multiuse landscape in western India, and quantified ecological drivers of their presence. The three species occupied 57% (leopard), 64% (wolf), and 75% (hyena) of the landscape of which only 2.6% area is protected as national parks or wildlife sanctuaries. The presence of the three carnivores was differentially favored by certain types of agriculture, while populations of domestic livestock supported them in this landscape with low densities of large wild prey. Our results demonstrate the adaptability of large carnivores in human‐modified landscapes, and we call for an expansion of the current conservation narratives that currently focus on forested PAs, to include the high potential that anthropogenic landscapes offer as habitats where people and predators can co‐adapt and persist.

Opportunities for prioritizing and expanding conservation enterprise in India using carnivores as flagships

“…But we posit that it may be a scale-dependent effect; at finer spatial scales, agricultural areas likely serve as secondary habitats, offer temporary refuges, and facilitate connectivity for these carnivores (Vanak & Gompper 2010; Athreya et al 2015; Majgaonkar et al 2019). Changes in crop type, transitions from seasonal to year-round cultivation, expansion of permanent irrigation, and intensification of pesticide use (impacting lower trophic levels) could create altered landscapes (UNCCD 2017), leading to local extinctions and/or shifts in carnivore communities (e.g., Majgaonkar et al 2019). Future studies will need to undertake detailed investigations on these aspects to offer deeper ecological insights and augment our findings.…”

Agricultural lands offer seasonal habitats to tigers in a human‐dominated and fragmented landscape in India

“…While land sharing is increasingly being recognized as vital to carnivore persistence within human-modified landscapes (Chapron et al 2014, Stephens 2015, operationalizing this concept has been complicated by a limited understanding of carnivore ecology within agroecosystems. While many studies on large carnivore use of human-modified areas exist (Woodroffe 2011, Boron et al 2018, Majgaonkar et al 2019, there remain critical gaps in our understanding of carnivore ecology within agricultural areas. In a review of carnivore use of agroecosystems, Ferreira et al (2018) found that the extent to which agricultural areas offer foraging habitats, dispersal routes, or cover for large carnivores remains unclear.…”

Casual analysis and short‐sighted inferences: A response to Majgaonkar et al. 2019

“…However, White, Jennings, Renwick, & Barker, 2005 cautioned that an interview-based approach should (a) minimize the number of nonrespondents, and (b) quantify the bias arising from nonresponse. Majgaonkar et al (2019) have interviewed 4.5 ± 3.4 (SD) persons per sampling unit, ranging from 1 to 18 respondents. When data are sparse, occupancy models are known to produce unstable results, which include boundary estimates producing the fitted probability of 0 or 1 (Welsh, Lindenmayer, & Donnelly, 2013).…”

“…When data are sparse, occupancy models are known to produce unstable results, which include boundary estimates producing the fitted probability of 0 or 1 (Welsh, Lindenmayer, & Donnelly, 2013). For example, the Indian wolf occupancy map of Majgaonkar et al (2019) exhibits this issue clearly where most of the sites have fitted a very high occupancy probability. With such uniform probability distribution, any prioritization of conservation sites is not possible.…”

“…Since management decisions rely on the best available science, poorly designed studies can lead to more harm than benefit to species conservation. Majgaonkar et al () advocated land‐sharing for the conservation of large carnivores in a human‐modified landscape. The authors correctly point out that the existing protected area network is not sufficient to ensure the long‐term persistence of wide‐ranging carnivore populations in the Western Ghats region of Maharashtra, India.…”