Non-protected areas demanding equitable conservation strategies as of protected areas in the Central Himalayan region

Abstract

The present study aims to explore the mammalian diversity of Darjeeling district using camera traps along with questionnaire survey in protected area (PA) and non- protected area (Non-PA). We also attempted to understand the influence of habitat variables on mammalian species richness using the generalized linear mixed models (GLMM). A total of 30 mammal species were recorded of which 21 species were detected through camera trapping with the most abundant records of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) and least of the elusive Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) and red panda (Ailurus fulgens). Additionally, melanistic forms of four mammals were also recorded. The mammalian species richness, their capture rate and naïve occupancy did not differ significantly among the PA and Non-PA. The GLMM revealed that the proportions of oak and bamboo in the forest, percentage canopy cover and camera trap operational days (wAICc = 0.145, wBIC = 0.603) were significant predictors of species richness in the study. We suggest Non-PA forest of Darjeeling should be given equal conservation importance as to the PA. Landscape based conservation planning will be imperative for achieving long term conservation goals in the study area.

Climate‐driven decline in the habitat of the endemic spiny babbler (Turdoides nipalensis)

“…In this regard, suitable habitat outside of PA should also be accorded equitable conservation priority. For this, incorporating suitable areas within the non‐PA system into the PA system could help immensely, because sustainable conservation objectives often require landscape‐based conservation planning, which includes both PA and non‐PA areas (De Camargo et al, 2018; Radford et al, 2005; Thapa et al, 2021). Awareness, educational outreach, and incentives to conserve the scrubby habitats and protect the connectivity of habitats for this species across the distributional range should be carried out in a landscape‐level approach.…”

Nature’s contributions to people and the Sustainable Development Goals in Nepal

“…Although the coverage of NCP research in Nepal was very broad, some geographical areas were relatively over-researched. For instance, comparatively more research has been performed in protected areas than in non-protected areas in Nepal, even though non-protected areas support critical NCPs in the Himalayan region (Thapa et al 2021). Research in protected areas has been dominated by localscale studies, and has usually focused on the direct effects of implementation of protected area policy on nature and local communities.…”

A note on Indian hare Lepus nigricollis: presence beyond the IUCN distribution in the Himalayas

“…Indian hare is known to be distributed up to the Himalayan foothills (2400 m asl) and further up in the Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalayas in India [6][7][8] but is stated to be absent from the high reaches of the Himalayas and Sundarbans (mangrove forest in West Bengal). The uppermost altitudinal extent is not clearly defined for this species, and therefore, a possible distributional range between 50 and 4500 m asl is assumed with no confirmed evidence [3].…”