Snow Leopard Survival Strategy - Panthera

Karanth, K. U. and M. E. Sunquist. 2000. Behavioural
correlates of predation by tiger (Panthera tigris),
leopard (Panthera pardus) and dhole (Cuon alpinus)
in Nagarahole, India. Journal of Zoology 250:255-265.
Behavioural factors that are likely to contribute to the
coexistence of tiger Panthera tigris, leopard P. pardus
and dhole Cuon alpinus, were investigated in the tropical
forests of Nagarahole, southern India, during 1986-1992.
Examination of predator seats and kills were combined
with radiotracking of four tigers, three leopards, and
visual observations of a pack of dhole. The three predators
selectively killed different prey types in terms of species,
size and age-sex classes, facilitating their coexistence
through ecological separation. There was no temporal
separation of predatory activities between tigers and
leopards. Hunting activities of dholes were temporally
separated from those of the two felids to some extent.
Rate of movement per unit time was higher for leopards
compared to tigers during day and night. In general,
the activity patterns of predators appeared to be largely
related to the activities of their principal prey, rather than
to mutual avoidance. The three predator species used the
same areas and hunted in similar habitats, although tigers
attacked their prey in slightly denser cover than leopards.
Both cats attacked their prey close to habitat features
that attracted ungulates. There was no evidence for
interspecific spatial exclusion among predators, resulting
either from habitat specificity or social dominance
behaviours. Our results suggest that ecological factors,
such as adequate availability of appropriate-sized prey,
dense cover and high tree densities may be the primary
factors in structuring the predator communities of
tropical forests. Behavioural factors such as differential
habitat selection or inter-specific social dominance,
which are of crucial importance in savanna habitats,
might play a relatively minor role in shaping the predator
communities of tropical forests.
Keiter, R. B. and H. Locke. 1996. Law and large
carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains of the
US and Canada. Conservation Biology 10:1003-1012.
The law governing large carnivores in the western U.S.
and western Canada abounds in jurisdictional complexity.
In the U.S., different federal and state laws govern large
carnivore conservation efforts; species listed under
the Endangered Species Act are generally protected,
whereas those subject to state regulation can be hunted,
trapped, or otherwise taken. Neither federal nor state
environmental or land management laws specifically
protect large carnivores, though these laws can be used
to protect habitat. A similar situation prevails in Canada.
Canadian federal law does not address large carnivore
conservation, although the national parks provide some
secure habitat. Provincial laws vary widely; none of
these laws specifically protect large carnivores, but some
provisions can be involved to protect habitat. Although
the two nations have not entered any bilateral treaties to
protect large carnivores, several species receive limited
protection under multilateral treaty obligations. Despite
these jurisdictional complexities, the existing legal
framework can be built upon to promote large carnivore
conservation efforts, primarily through a legally protected
reserve system. Whether the political will exists to utilize
fully the available legal authorities remains to be seen.
Kiester, A. R., J. M. Scott, B. Csuti, R. F. Noss, B.
Butterfield, K. Sahr and D. White. 1996. Conservation
prioritization using GAP data. Conservation Biology
10(5):1332-1342.
Data collected by the Gap Analysis Program in the state
of Idaho (U.S.A.) are used to prioritize the selection
of locations for conservation action and research.
Set coverage and integer programming algorithms
provide a sequence of localities that maximize the
number of species or vegetation classes represented
at each step. Richness maps of vegetation cover class
diversity, terrestrial vertebrate species diversity (“hot
spot analysis”), endangered, threatened, and candidate
species diversity, and unprotected vertebrate species
diversity (“gap analysis”), when prioritized, show a rapid
accumulation of species as more localities are chosen
for terrestrial vertebrates and unprotected vertebrates.
Gap analysis identifies four target areas (“gaps”) that
include 79 of the 83 vertebrate species not currently
protected. Accumulation of vegetation cover classes
and endangered, threatened, and candidate species
is much slower. Sweep analysis is used to determine
how well prioritizing on one component of diversity
accumulates other components. Endangered, threatened,
and candidate species do not sweep total vertebrates as
well as unprotected vertebrates do, but are better than
vegetation classes. Total vertebrates sweep endangered,
threatened, and candidate species better than unprotected
vertebrates do, which in turn are better than vegetation
classes. We emphasize that prioritization must be part
of conservation efforts at multiple scales and that
prioritization points out important localities where more
detailed work must be undertaken.
Kobler, A. and M. Adamic. 2000. Identifying brown
bear habitat by a combined GIS and machine learning
method. Ecological Modelling 135:291-300 (2000).
In this paper we attempt to identify brown bear (Ursus
arctos) habitat in south-western part of Slovenia, a
country lying on the north-western-most edge of the
continuous Dinaric-Eastern Alps brown bear population.
The knowledge base (in the form of a decision tree) for
the expert system for identifying the suitable habitat, was
induced by automated machine learning from recorded
bear sightings, and then linked to the GIS thematic
layers for subsequent habitat/non-habitat classification
of the entire study area. The accuracy of the decision
tree classifier was 87% (KHAT 73%). The decision tree
mostly agreed with the existing domain knowledge. For
the study area the main factors considered by the expert
SNOW LEOPARD SURVIVAL STRATEGY | 83