Community-managed forests and wildlife-friendly agriculture play a subsidiary but not substitutive role to protected areas for the endangered Asian elephant

Global conservation policy is increasingly debating the feasibility of reconciling wildlife conservation and human resource requirements in land uses outside protected areas (PAs). However, there are few quantitative assessments of whether or to what extent these `wildlife-friendly' land uses fulfill a fundamental function of PAs-to separate biodiversity from anthropogenic threats. We distinguish the role of wildlife-friendly land uses as being (a) subsidiary, whereby they augment PAs with secondary habitat, or (b) substitutive, wherein they provide comparable habitat to PAs. We tested our hypotheses by investigating the influence of land use and human presence on space-use intensity of the endangered Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) in a fragmented landscape comprising PAs and wildlife-friendly land uses. We applied multistate occupancy models to spatial data on elephant occurrence to estimate and model the overall probability of elephants using a site, and the conditional probability of high-intensity use given that elephants use a site. The probability of elephants using a site regardless of intensity did not vary between PAs and wildlife-friendly land uses. However, high-intensity use declined with distance to PM, and this effect was accentuated by an increase in village density. Therefore, while wildlife-friendly land uses did play a subsidiary conservation role, their potential to substitute for PAs was offset by a strong human presence. Our findings demonstrate the need to evaluate the role of wildlife-friendly land uses in landscape-scale conservation; for species that have conflicting resource requirements with people, PAs are likely to provide crucial refuge from growing anthropogenic threats. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The Frontiers of India's Biological Diversity

India has a long and rich history of tropical science. But here, as elsewhere in the tropical world, there are surprises to be discovered. One thinks immediately of the description, in December 2004, of a new species of macaque from India - the Arunachal macaque Macaca munzala. I use the word description deliberately, because this species was long known to the local people, and the species name rightly reflects this knowledge. Mun zala means "deep-forest monkey" in the language of the Dirang Monpa people of Tawang and West Kameng Districts of Arunachal Pradesh, where this species lives. The new macaque was discovered by science during field trips to these areas by Indian scientists from the Nature Conservation Foundation in Mysore, the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bangalore, the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York, and the International Snow Leopard Trust. In this habitat, the largely Buddhist local community abstains from killing wildlife for food or sport, although the monkey has been reportedly shot for crop raiding. This species, one of the world's highest-living primate species, lives at altitudes between 1,600 and 3,500m, and is thus a veritable yeti.

Wild Ungulate Decision-Making and the Role of Tiny Refuges in Human-Dominated Landscapes

Wildlife conservation in human-dominated landscapes requires that we understand how animals, when making habitat-use decisions, obtain diverse and dynamically occurring resources while avoiding risks, induced by both natural predators and anthropogenic threats. Little is known about the underlying processes that enable wild animals to persist in densely populated human-dominated landscapes, particularly in developing countries. In a complex, semi-arid, fragmented, human-dominated agricultural landscape, we analyzed the habitat-use of blackbuck, a large herbivore endemic to the Indian sub-continent. We hypothesized that blackbuck would show flexible habitat-use behaviour and be risk averse when resource quality in the landscape is high, and less sensitive to risk otherwise. Overall, blackbuck appeared to be strongly influenced by human activity and they offset risks by using small protected patches (similar to 3 km(2)) when they could afford to do so. Blackbuck habitat use varied dynamically corresponding with seasonally-changing levels of resources and risks, with protected habitats registering maximum use. The findings show that human activities can strongly influence and perhaps limit ungulate habitat-use and behaviour, but spatial heterogeneity in risk, particularly the presence of refuges, can allow ungulates to persist in landscapes with high human and livestock densities.