A Supplemental HCVF Assessment on the Sumatran Tiger ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FINAL REPORT Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> – Serapung FMU 4 Results 4.1 Remote Camera Monitoring of Tigers and Prey Species A total of 150 camera-trap days were achieved at eleven locations within and around the FMU (Figure 9). Photographic results achieved during the remote camera monitoring are summarised in Table 4 below. A total of 14 tiger photographs were obtained at three locations (sites II, III and IV). Evidence from secondary signs indicated that tigers also passed through two further camera traps (sites I and VIII) but due to malfunction and theft of the cameras respectively no photographs were obtained. Overall a high rate of tiger photo-capture was achieved with an average of 0.093 photographs per camera trap day (10.7 camera trap days per tiger photograph). The photo-capture rates obtained in this assessment are compared with data from previous tiger studies in section 5.2. A problem associated with remote camera monitoring is the potential difficulty of matching independent left- and right-flank photographs from a single individual. While ideal, the use of double camera systems (simultaneous left- and right-side photocapture) was not used in this study due to the high risk of camera theft, the limited number of cameras available, and the time constraints relative to the risk of technical failure associated with these more complex camera system installations. However, the limited geographical extent of the assessment, and the numerically low number of tiger photographs obtained due to limited time available, ensured that this did not represent a concern. Ultimately, all tiger photographs obtained during the study could be accurately classified according to individual identity. Of the 14 tiger photographs obtained, 13 of these were of a single adult male (individual A; see Figure 10 and Figure 11 for right and left flank photographs respectively). A single left-flank photograph was obtained of a second adult male (individual B; see Figure 12). Identification of the sex of these individuals was confirmed by the visibility of external genitalia in the images obtained. As noted above, tigers were also observed to have passed cameras at sites (I) and (VIII), though no photographs were obtained due to malfunction and camera theft. Secondary tiger signs found at these two locations were interpreted in order to decide whether these tiger’s signs represented individuals A and/or B, or whether there was evidence that these signs represented previously unrecorded tiger individuals. In the case of the tiger that passed camera site (I), size of pug-marks were comparable to those from the similar sized adult males individuals A and B. However, at site (VIII) the pug-marks recorded were significantly smaller, representative of either a sub-adult or a young adult female. In confirmation of the latter, signs of scent-marking behaviour (urine sprayed high and to the rear of the animal) were observed and judged to be characteristic of an adult female individual. Six camera locations recorded tiger prey species (I, IV, V, VII, IX and X), which included pig-tail macaque (n=3), long-tail macaque (n=1), wild pig (n=1), and sun bear (n=1). The limited number of prey photographs obtained (6 photographic events; see Table 4) did not facilitate any further analysis of relative prey abundance between the FMU and non-FMU forests of the study area. Remote camera photographs of prey species recorded can be found in Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15 below. Camera-trapping effort was not evenly distributed between the FMU and adjacent forests, with 50% more camera trap days achieved in forests outside the FMU. This difference was largely due to theft of cameras within the FMU, which not only led to loss of data but also restricted the diversity of locations where cameras could be safely deployed. Extensive forest fires, within and outside the FMU, also restricted locations where cameras could be placed and led to forced premature removal in one instance. Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program Pg 28/68
FINAL REPORT Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> – Serapung FMU Table 4. Summary of photographic results of remote camera monitoring carried out at 11 locations (sites I to XI) in peat swamp forests of the Serapung study area. Camera Site & Data-set Date of Camera Set-up Total Camera Trap Days Tiger Pig-tail Macaque No. of Photographs Obtained Long-tail Macaque Sun Bear Wild Pig I 10/01/2005 18 1 II (a) 14/01/2005 14 4 II (b) 28/01/2005 10 1 III (a) 10/01/2005 4 1 III (b) 15/01/2005 13 5 III (c) 28/01/2005 10 1 IV (a) 09/01/2005 5 1 IV (b) 14/01/2005 14 1 1 V 10/01/2005 5 VI 10/01/2005 22 1 VII 10/01/2005 4 1 VIII 10/01/2005 0 IX (a) 09/01/2005 17 1 IX (b) 26/01/2005 10 X 02/02/2005 4 1 XI 14/01/2005 0 Total 150 14 3 1 1 1 Figure 9. Location of camera traps and number of tiger photographs obtained at each site. Evidence from secondary signs indicated that tigers also passed cameras I and VIII during the monitoring period, but photographs were not obtained due to technical malfunction and camera theft respectively. Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program Pg 29/68
Page 1 and 2: SUMATRAN TIGER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Page 3 and 4: FINAL REPORT Tiger HCVF</st
Page 27: FINAL REPORT Tiger HCVF</st

A Supplemental HCVF Assessment on the Sumatran Tiger ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?