A Supplemental HCVF Assessment on the Sumatran Tiger ...

FINAL REPORT Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> – Serapung FMU
4.2 Rapid <strong>Assessment</strong> Field Surveys based on Secondary Signs
From a total field survey transect of 237 km, spread widely across the study area (of
which 106 km used an intensive rapid assessment protocol) 354 tiger signs were
recorded (Figure 16). These included pug-marks (paw prints), scrapes (a marking sign
created by scraping back the hind legs after expelling faeces or urine), urine sprays (a
scent-marking behaviour), faeces, and flattened resting sites. In order to estimate the
ranges of all tiger individuals associated with the secondary signs recorded here, a
buffer area of 3.55 km (equivalent to the radius of the mean home range size of male
and female Sumatran tigers (Franklin 2002)) was delineated around these secondary
sign data-points (Figure 16).
Mobility of survey teams was facilitated when travelling along canal-side pathways,
though this was offset by a contrasting slow rate of progress in the interstitial areas of
PSF where no canals were present. The need to maximise coverage of the study area
during the limited time available required that the survey teams travelled along the
majority of primary and secondary canal-side pathways within the FMU moratorium
area during this phase. In order to sample deep into the PSF, as distant from the canal
system as possible, survey routes were designed to cut across the PSF blocks by
selecting routes perpendicular to, and between, the secondary canals.
Calculation of survey effort per unit area both for all surveys, and for rapid assessment
surveys specifically, has been described previously in section 3.5, page 24. Figure 6
and Figure 7 in section 3.5 graphically demonstrate that survey effort was highest in
the north of the FMU, along the primary canal within the moratorium area, and also
along the Yos trail on the FMU’s northern boundary.
Rapid assessment surveys rigorously and consistently record all secondary signs and
direct observations of tigers and prey species observed by field teams. Double
counting of signs by different field teams was avoided by marking signs on the ground
as they were recorded, and by geographic separation of survey teams’ respective
efforts. Data-points representing observations resulting from these surveys were
rectified in accordance with survey effort per 1 km 2 unit as described in section 3.5 and
incorporated into GIS maps using an ArcGIS (ESRI) density function. The resulting GIS
maps (Figure 18 and Figure 19 below) graphically represent an index of abundance
for tiger and prey secondary signs per unit of survey effort (at a 1 km 2 resolution).
The highest density of tiger sign per unit of survey effort was found along the Yos Trail
(Figure 18) consistent with findings obtained by remote camera monitoring described in
section 4.1. Tiger sign was also found within the moratorium area at a number of
locations, including positive evidence of the presence of an adult female individual (see
section 4.1 above). No tiger signs were found at Tandjung Datuk, situated at the southeastern
corner of the FMU, either inside the small area of <strong>HCVF</strong> forest delineated there
(see map in Figure 3, page 11; area partially designated as HCV4 by SmartWood) or in
the adjacent forests, secondary habitat, scrub and agricultural land along the coast.
Secondary signs and direct observations of tiger prey species indicated prey was
distributed widely across the study area both within and outside the FMU (Figure 19).
Lower prey levels, even absence, were observed in areas planted with acacia. Prey
species identified from secondary signs (primarily pug-marks) but not recorded by
remote cameras were the Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), the Muntjak deer (Muntiacus
muntjak) and the mouse-deer (Tragulus spp.).
Coarse analysis of the animal hairs (and also bones, claws and other indigestible
remnants of prey) found in the tiger faecal samples collected by field teams allowed
identification of prey species consumed by tigers. From a total of 11 faecal samples the
dominant prey species contained in each of the samples included wild pig (n = 6),
Macaca spp. (n = 1), sambar deer (n = 1) and sun-bear (n = 3).
Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program Pg 32/68