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 4.2 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
FINAL REPORT Tiger <strong>HCVF</strong> <strong>Supplemental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> – Serapung FMU The trapping of various tiger prey species (Muntjak, sambar, mouse-deer and wild pig) for bush meat appears to be common in the FMU, both by local communities and by company contractors as evidenced by the abundance of animal traps found within the FMU, and by the ready availability of deer meat in local markets and eating-houses. In general prey abundance levels and prey species composition were found to be broadly representative of other lowland forest habitats in Sumatra which are known to support tigers. Figure 16. Locations of tiger sign found during surveys in the study area. A buffer of 3.55 km (equivalent to the radius of an average tiger home range) was plotted around the tiger signs to estimate a likely area over which the tigers detected are likely to range. Figure 17. Tiger pug-mark recorded during ground surveys in the FMU moratorium area. Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program Pg 33/68
Page 1 and 2: SUMATRAN TIGER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Page 3 and 4: FINAL REPORT Tiger HCVF</st
Page 31: 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?