Certificate - Etheses - Saurashtra University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1995; Nedelec et al., 1995; Kaczensky, 1996 and Swenson et al., 1999). Body size of the predator was found to influence prey selection. Consequently, large brown bears were more likely to kill cattle than smaller bears. Haglund (1968) found that adult moose were killed mainly by large brown bears, and Eide (1965) found the same for cattle on Kodiak Island. Adult male bears were found to be predominantly active during night, and this time was crucial for livestock depredation (Wabakken and Maartmann, 1994). In North America, domestic livestock and beehives were found to attract to grizzly bears (Mattson, 1990). Under certain conditions, grizzly bears were found to kill substantial number of cattle and sheep (Murie, 1948; Johnson and Griffel, 1982; Jorgenson, 1983; Knight and Judd, 1983 and Brown, 1985). Both grizzly and black bears were found to cause substantial damage to beehives (Jorgensen et al., 1978). Along Rocky Mountain East Front in Montana, 44% of conflicts were due to cattle depredation by bears and 40% were due to property damage during 1980s (Aune and Kasworm, 1989). The conflict locations were found to be most strongly associated with rivers and creeks, followed by sheep lambing areas and fall sheep pastures and majority of conflicts occurred in a small portion of the study area, where concentrations of attractants existed that overlapped with bear habitat. During 1991-1994, 82% of all human-grizzly bear conflicts were attractant related and approximately 55% of conflicts were associated with livestock presence (Madel, 1996). Grizzlies were found to prefer ambush predation while preying on large animals such as adult moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus elaphus) and domestic cattle (Murie, 1948 and Mattson, 1997). In Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, Andean bears were perceived as livestock predators where herding was common and direct observations of cattle depredation by bears were reported at 3 sites in Colombia and Ecuador (Goldstein, 2006). In Venezuela, numerous cases of 38
ear-livestock interactions were reported (Goldstein, 1991a, 2002). There have been recent reports of bear-livestock conflicts from Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Finland, France, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakai, Sweden, Spain, United States and the former Yugoslavia (Servheen et al., 1999). Overall, injuries to humans caused by bears of any species were rare, though such events were often well publicized (Herrero, 1985; Middaugh, 1987 and Herrero and Fleck, 1990). Conflicts between people and American black and grizzly bears have been well documented. 39
Page 1 and 2:
Saurashtra University Re - Accredit
Page 3 and 4:
Ecology of brown bear (Ursus arctos
Page 5 and 6:
Contents Acknowledgements i-iv Summ
Page 7 and 8:
List of Tables Chapter 4: Feeding e
Page 9 and 10: Figure 5. Presence of food items in
Page 11 and 12: Photograph 11. Collection of brown
Page 13 and 14: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Several individual
Page 15 and 16: logistic support in the alpine and
Page 17 and 18: Summary The brown bear is widely di
Page 19 and 20: own bears and seasonal difference i
Page 21 and 22: use of these habitat categories. Si
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 1 1.1 Bear species and dist
Page 25 and 26: Hokkaido, the Hokkaido brown bear (
Page 27 and 28: 1.2 Status of bear species All bear
Page 29 and 30: human beings. The resources availab
Page 31 and 32: protection methods have been studie
Page 33 and 34: viii. The study will also help sugg
Page 35 and 36: Brown bears were found tetrapedal,
Page 37 and 38: hence created their own dens. Brown
Page 39 and 40: 2.5 Habitat use pattern Johnson (19
Page 41 and 42: evealed that although both preferre
Page 43 and 44: Marchinton, 1980; Smith, 1986; Hell
Page 45 and 46: and ground nesting birds and their
Page 47 and 48: kelp, mollusks, fish and remains of
Page 49 and 50: during early summer (Hamer and Herr
Page 51 and 52: 1983a). Although insects constitute
Page 53 and 54: fruits and mammals. Their study als
Page 55 and 56: geographically (LeFranc et al., 198
Page 57 and 58: commodities in their search for alt
Page 59: Yellowstone National Park between 1
Page 63 and 64: Gamgul Siabehi are relatively less
Page 65 and 66: A list of angiosperms and gymnosper
Page 67 and 68: (Ursus arctos), the other wild anim
Page 69 and 70: Chapter 4 Feeding ecology of brown
Page 71 and 72: 1984; Mace and Jonkel, 1986; Odhach
Page 73 and 74: these scats were separately placed
Page 75 and 76: were analysed, and the proportion o
Page 77 and 78: Fragaria nubicola 34 times. Photogr
Page 79 and 80: Figure 5 showed marked monthly vari
Page 81 and 82: the method of percent occurrence of
Page 83 and 84: (Hedysarum alpinum) roots and main
Page 85 and 86: and Aoi, 1987). The higher occurren
Page 87 and 88: constituted a major portion of earl
Page 89 and 90: Figure 2. Frequency occurrence of a
Page 91 and 92: Continued Food items Occurrence Sum
Page 93 and 94: Figure 4. Number of direct feeding
Page 95 and 96: Table 3. Availability of food items
Page 97 and 98: Table 2. Number of direct feeding o
Page 99 and 100: omnivorous generalist lifestyle. Br
Page 101 and 102: systematic information is available
Page 103 and 104: 5.3.0. Results In Kugti wildlife sa
Page 105 and 106: for Agricultural land category and
Page 107 and 108: 5.3.3 Habitat availability vs. util
Page 109 and 110: ocks with slope grasses (38.4%), Mi
Page 111 and 112:
gentle slope terrain was found to b
Page 113 and 114:
Exposed rock with slope grasses and
Page 115 and 116:
found mainly dependent on availabil
Page 117 and 118:
availability of brown bear habitat
Page 119 and 120:
Ballard et al., 1993) and interior
Page 121 and 122:
slope terrain was found to be highe
Page 123 and 124:
Table 1. Continued S. No. Dry alpin
Page 125 and 126:
Table 3. Frequency of occurrence of
Page 127 and 128:
Table 5. Seasonal variation in habi
Page 129 and 130:
Table 7. Proportional availability
Page 131 and 132:
Figure 1: Sampling layout for veget
Page 133 and 134:
livestock and attack on people. In
Page 135 and 136:
1978; Knight and Judd, 1983; Garshe
Page 137 and 138:
develop mitigation strategies that
Page 139 and 140:
division, Chamba wildlife division,
Page 141 and 142:
in the sanctuary area. Figure 1 als
Page 143 and 144:
Different plant species, phenologic
Page 145 and 146:
Damage to wheat crop was 15-25%. Ma
Page 147 and 148:
Ghiula dhar, Bharali Kinnaur dhar,
Page 149 and 150:
Livestock depredation by brown bear
Page 151 and 152:
The studies conducted in India and
Page 153 and 154:
Table 1. List of grazing pastures o
Page 155 and 156:
Table 3. Livestock depredation in d
Page 157 and 158:
Figure 1. Livestock depredation in
Page 159:
Table 5. Agricultural crops and the
Page 162 and 163:
Table 7. Damage to agricultural cro
Page 164 and 165:
7. Suggestions and recommendations
Page 166 and 167:
4. In Kugti wildlife sanctuary, the
Page 168 and 169:
During evening and night time, the
Page 170 and 171:
17. Brown bears cause extensive dam
Page 172 and 173:
References Abe, H., Aoi, T., Tsubot
Page 174 and 175:
Aune, K. and Kasworm, W. (1989). Fi
Page 176 and 177:
Berns, V.D., Atwell, G.C. and Boone
Page 178 and 179:
Chauhan, N.P.S. (2003). Human casua
Page 180 and 181:
Craighead, F.C., Jr. and Craighead,
Page 182 and 183:
Elgmork, K. and Kassa, J. (1992). F
Page 184 and 185:
Garcia-Gaona, J.F. (1997). Damages
Page 186 and 187:
Gunther, K.A. and Renkin, R.A. (199
Page 188 and 189:
Herrero, S. (1978). A comparison of
Page 190 and 191:
Irving, L. and Krog, J. (1954). Bod
Page 192 and 193:
Joshi, A.R., Garshelis, D.L. and Sm
Page 194 and 195:
Krishna Raju, K.S.R., Krishna Murth
Page 196 and 197:
Mace, R.D. and Waller, J.S. (1996).
Page 198 and 199:
Mattson, D.J. and Hovey, F.W. (1995
Page 200 and 201:
Mertzanis, G. (1994). Brown bear in
Page 202 and 203:
Nawaz, M.A. (2007). Status of the b
Page 204 and 205:
Pazhetnov, V.S. (1990). Brown bear.
Page 206 and 207:
Reynolds, D.G. and Beecham, J. (198
Page 208 and 209:
Sathyakumar, S. (2006a). The status
Page 210 and 211:
Sellers, R.D. and Aumiller, L.D. (1
Page 212 and 213:
Stein, J.T. (2000). From exterminat
Page 214 and 215:
Van Daele, L.J. (1995). Unit 17 bro
Page 216 and 217:
Yamanaka, M., Yasue, K. and Ohtaish
Page 218 and 219:
Continued S. No. Common name Genus
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Appendix 3. GPS location of line tr
Page 226 and 227:
Appendix 4 Format - 1(a) Vegetation
Page 228 and 229:
Format - 1(c) Vegetation Compositio
Page 230 and 231:
Format - 1(f) Biotic Pressures Tran
Page 232 and 233:
Format - 2(b) Distribution and Abun
Page 234 and 235:
4. Occupational Pattern: i. Noumber
Page 236 and 237:
vii. Crop damage month-wise: Tick m
Page 238 and 239:
E. NTFP collection: Name Species Qu
show all

Certificate - Etheses - Saurashtra University

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

Delete template?

Save as template?