Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26
February 2018 | 10(2): 11245–11253
Observations of occurrence and daily activity patterns of ungulates in
the Endau Rompin Landscape, peninsular Malaysia
Win Sim Tan1,
Norazmi bin Amir Hamzah2, Salman Saaban3,
Nurul Aida Zawakhir4, Yugees
Rao5, Norolhuda Jamaluddin6,
Francis Cheong7, Norhidayati binti Khalid8, Nur Iadiah Mohd Saat9, Eka Nadia binti Zaidee Ee10, Azwan bin
Hamdan11, Mei Mei Chow12, Chee Pheng Low13, Mufeng Voon14, Song Horng
Liang15, Martin Tyson16 & Melvin Gumal17
1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,17 Wildlife Conservation Society - Malaysia
Program, 7 Jalan Ridgeway, 93200 Kuching, Sarawak,
Malaysia
2 Johor National Parks Corporation, Aras 1, Bangunan DatoÕ Mohamad Saleh Perang,
Kota Iskandar, 79576 Iskandar
Puteri, Johor, Malaysia
3 Department of Wildlife and National Parks
of Peninsular Malaysia, Km 10, Jalan Cheras, 56100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
12 Penang Green Council, Tingkat 46, KOMTAR,
10503 Penang, Malaysia
14 Sarawak Forestry Corporation,
Lot 218, Jalan Tapang, Kota
Sentosa, 93250 Kuching Sarawak, Malaysia
15 Pertubuhan Pelindung Alam Malaysia, B-06-06
BLOK B, CGC, Jalan Casa Green, 43200 Cheras, Selangor, Malaysia
16 Wildlife Conservation Society,
132 Bloomingdale Ave #2, Saranac Lake, NY 12983, United States of America.
1wtan@wcs.org (corresponding author), 2norazmi.ah@johor.gov.my,
3salman@wildlife.gov.my,
4nzawakhir@wcs.org, 5yrao@wcs.org,
6njamaluddin@wcs.org, 7fcheong@wcs.org, 8knorhidayati@wcs.org,
9nmohdsaat@wcs.org, 10ekanadia@wcs.org,
11azwan@wcs.org, 12 bavrielchow@gmail.com, 13cplow@wcs.org,
14mfvoon@gmail.com, 15director@pelindungalam.org, 16mtyson@wcs.org,
17mgumal@wcs.org
doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3519.10.2.11245-11253 | ZooBank:
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F2D79DCF-2B2F-42AE-A70D-91AC7D844FAF
Editor: David Mallon, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. Date
of publication: 26 February 2018 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # 3519 |
Received 27 May 2017 | Final received 15 January 2018 | Finally accepted 25
January 2018
Citation: Tan, W.S., N.B.A. Hamzah, S. Saaban, N.A. Zawakhir, Y. Rao, N. Jamaluddin, F. Cheong, N.B. Khalid, N.L. Mohdsaat, E.N.B. Zaidee Ee, A.B. Hamdan, M.M. Chow, C.P.
Low, M. Voon, S.H. Liang, M. Tyson, & M. Gumal. (2018). Observations of occurrence
and daily activity patterns of ungulates in the Endau Rompin
Landscape, peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Threatened Taxa
10(2): 11245–11253; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3519.10.2.11245-11253
Copyright: © Tan et al. 2018. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and
the source of publication.
Funding: Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation (LCAOF); Panthera Corporation; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing
interests.
Acknowledgements: The permission
to conduct this research was granted by the State Government of Johor through the memorandum of understanding
signed with the Johor
National Parks Corporation for
the Johor Wildlife Conservation Project. The Malaysian Department of Wildlife and National Parks, State Forestry Department of Johor and State Forestry Department of Pahang are partners
to the project. The authors
thank the Liz Claiborne Art
Ortenberg Foundation, Panthera
Corporation, and United States
Fish and Wildlife Service for
funding this work. In addition, the authors thank Johor National Parks Corporation for their assistance with our camera trapping works, Mike Meredith and Ngumbang Juat
of Biodiversity Conservation
Society Sarawak for their advice with
the data analysis and Daniel Kong and
Sylvia Ng of Wildlife Conservation
Society - Malaysia Program for their
help with the data audit. The field surveys would have been impossible without the hard work from all members of the field
team who spent time out in
the rain and sun, and also
in the office, poring over the images, creating maps and
analyzing these data.
Author Details: Win Sim Tan is a senior
researcher for WCS - Malaysia Program. He has an honours degree in Wildlife
Ecology from University of Wisconsin – Madison. He has been involved in a
tiger conservation project in the Endau Rompin
landscape of Johor and Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia since 2013. Norazmi bin Amir Hamzah is
currently the director of Johor National Parks Corporation. Salman
Saaban is currently the director of the
Enforcement Division for the Department of Wildlife and National Parks of
Peninsular Malaysia. Nurul Aida completed a degree in Ecology and
Biodiversity at University of Malaya, Malaysia. She is now an Assistant
Coordinator managing the Pahang Endau-Rompin
Landscape tiger team. She was previously involved in the wildlife monitoring
surveys including camera trapping of tigers for population estimation. Yugees Anandarao is currently one of the
three Assistant Coordinators working on a tiger conservation project in the
Endau Rompin landscape of Johor and Pahang, Malaysia.
She has been working for WCS - Malaysia since 2012. Norolhuda Jamaluddin has a degree in
Biology from University of Technology Mara, Malaysia. She has been working with
WCS - Malaysia in a tiger project which focusing on
research and law enforcement to save the precious animal and its environment
since 2010. Francis Cheong is currently the assistant
director for WCS – Malaysia Program, managing a tiger and elephant
conservation project in the Endau Rompin landscape of
Johor and Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia.
Norhidayati binti Khalid is currently one of the
senior researchers for WCS – Malaysia Program, working on an elephant
conservation project in the Endau Rompin landscape of
Johor and Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia.
Nur Iadiah completed
her degree in Conservation and Management of Biodiversity in 2010. She joined
WCS Malaysia as an intern and subsequently a researcher to work on a
human-elephant conflict and mitigation project in 2012. She is currently a
senior researcher, working on a tiger conservation project in the Endau Rompin landscape of Johor and Pahang, Peninsular
Malaysia. Eka Nadia has a degree in Zoology from the faculty of Science
and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia. She worked on a turtle conservation project for WWF-Malaysia for six
months before joining WCS - Malaysia as a tiger researcher project in the Endau
Rompin landscape. She is familiar with camera
trapping to estimate tiger population and monitor tiger hotspots. Azwan Hamdan is a senior researcher at
WCS – Malaysia Program, involved in camera trapping, wildlife surveys, threat monitoring and human-wildlife conflict data
collection. He is an administrator for SMART (Spatial Monitoring and Reporting
Tools) database for a tiger research project in the Endau Rompin
Landscape of Johor and Pahang, Malaysia.
Mei Mei
Chow is an environmental research assistant at Penang Green Council
based in Penang, Malaysia. She was previously a wildlife researcher for
WCS-Malaysia Program, involved in wildlife surveys and patrol data management. Low Chee Pheng is the project coordinator of the tiger
program for Wildlife Conservation Society - Malaysia Program. She coordinates
the research program to monitor the Tiger and prey population in the Endau-Rompin Landscape in Malaysia. Voon Mufeng was with the Wildlife Conservation Society
as a senior researcher for four years handling the tiger conservation projects
in Rompin, Pahang. Currently she works with the
Sarawak Forestry Corporation (SFC) as an Executive in the GeoDrone
Unit, managing the geospatial information for five main core functions of SFC.
She holds a MSc in Conservation Biology from
University of Kent, United Kingdom. Song Horng Liang has been working in wildlife
conservation for 15 years; and is currently the executive director of a local
Malaysian NGO, Pelindung Alam
Malaysia, working on large scale wildlife surveys that cover from elephants,
tigers to gibbons and hornbills. He previously managed the elephant and tiger
units of Wildlife Conservation Society Malaysia for about 8 years; worked for
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia on undercover wildlife trade investigation on Saiga antelopes, tigers and their prey in Malaysia and
Singapore for 2 years; and assisted the Rainforest Wolf Project of Raincoast Conservation Foundation in western Canada for 2
years. He received degrees from University of Victoria, Canada (Bachelor) and
National University of Singapore (MSc). Martin Tyson
is currently a technical advisor for Asian elephants at the Wildlife
Conservation Society. He has worked in several SE Asian countries, focusing on
elephant population survey, mitigation of human–elephant conflict, and
assisting range states in developing elephant conservation plans. Melvin
Gumal is the Country Director for Wildlife
Conservation Society Malaysia. He
has been in conservation science since 1988 and studied in the universities of
Melbourne and Cambridge. He currently works with colleagues on conservation of
tigers and their prey, elephants, orang-utans, sharks, rays and their habitats.
Author
Contribution: Win Sim Tan and Melvin Terry
Gumal conceived the original idea and drafted the
manuscript with inputs from all authors. Win Sim Tan analyzed the data. Norazmi bin
Amir Hamzah, Salman Saaban,
Francis Cheong, Martin Tyson, Song Horng Liang, Mufeng Voon, Chee
Pheng Low and Azwan Hamdan provided critical feedback and helped to shape the
manuscript. Francis Cheong, Song Horng Liang, Mufeng Voon, Chee
Pheng Low, Azwan Hamdan, Nurul Aida Zawakhir, Yugees Rao, Norolhuda Jamaluddin, Norhidayati binti Khalid, Nur Iadiah Mohd Saat,
Eka Nadia binti Zaidee Ee, Mei Mei Chow and Win Sim Tan
contributed to data collection. Melvin Terry Gumal
supervised the project.
Abstract: Camera trap data was used to study
occurrence and daily activity patterns in the Endau Rompin
Landscape of peninsular Malaysia during 2011, 2013 and 2015 to estimate Malayan
Tiger Panthera tigris jacksoni
population densities. By-catch data
were also collected for seven ungulate species: Barking Deer Muntiacus muntjak,
Bearded Pig Sus barbatus, Wild Boar Sus scrofa, Greater Mousedeer Tragulus
napu, Lesser Mousedeer Tragulus
kanchil, Malayan Tapir Tapirus
indicus and Sambar Deer
Rusa unicolor. Of these, Bayesian single-season
occupancy analysis suggested that Barking Deer were the most widespread and
Mousedeer spp. the least widespread during the study period. Bearded Pig, Malayan Tapir and Wild Boar
were recorded in more than half of the camera trap area (Sambar
Deer was excluded due to small sample size). Daily activity patterns based on
independent captures in 2015 suggest that Barking Deer, Bearded Pig and Wild
Boar are mostly diurnal, mousedeer species are crepuscular and Malayan Tapir
strongly nocturnal.
Keywords: Bayesian single-season occupancy,
by-catch, camera trap, daily activity pattern, Endau Rompin
Landscape, occurrence, peninsular Malaysia, ungulate.
INTRODUCTION
Of the 11 species of ungulates reported from Peninsular Malaysia
(Francis 2008), 10 have been reported in the southern Endau Rompin
Landscape (ERL). Banteng Bos javanicus, Gaur
Bos gaurus
and Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis were recorded in the past century (Milton
1963; Davison & Kiew 1987; Burhanuddin
et al. 1995). The other recently
reported ungulate species are Barking Deer Muntiacus
muntjak, Bearded Pig Sus barbatus,
Greater Mousedeer Tragulus napu, Lesser Mousedeer Tragulus
kanchil, Malayan Tapir Tapirus
indicus, Sambar Deer Rusa unicolor and Wild Boar Sus scrofa (Aihara et al. 2016;
WCS - Malaysia Program unpub.). Conservation
of wildlife in peninsular Malaysia is regulated by the Wildlife Conservation
Act (2010), including harvesting for commercial purposes. Bearded Pig
and Malayan Tapir are listed as Totally Protected, and Barking Deer, Greater
Mousedeer, Lesser Mousedeer, Sambar Deer and Wild
Boar as Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act (2010). Their status on the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (IUCN 2017) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia
(DWNP 2010) are shown in Table 1.
These ungulates are likely the major prey base for the Critically
Endangered Malayan Tiger in peninsular Malaysia (Kawanishi
2002; Goldthorpe & Neo 2011; Kawanishi
et al. 2013; Rayan & Linkie
2015). Karanth
& Sunquist (1995) found that larger carnivores
selectively hunt larger prey when available. A decline in large ungulate prey has been reported to be linked to a decline in a tiger
population (Ramakrishnan et al. 1999). Understanding the ecology of large
ungulate prey is, therefore, important to predator conservation. Collecting information about these
ungulates can be useful to tiger conservation in the ERL.
Camera trapping is an effective non-invasive method to study shy and
reclusive wild animals (see OÕConnell et al. 2011; Ancrenaz
et al. 2012; Sunarto et al. 2013; Trolliet
et al. 2014).
Detection/non-detection information captured by camera traps can be used
to study species occurrence (OÕConnell & Bailey 2011; Shannon et al. 2014)
and activity pattern (Ridout & Linkie 2009).
There are, however, some limitations on the use of these data as
indicated by Liang (2015), including the fact that setting cameras at certain
heights for large mammals sometimes misses smaller animals that pass by
undetected.
In 2011, 2013 and 2015, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) - Malaysia
Program conducted intensive camera trapping to estimate Malayan Tiger population
densities in the ERL. By-catch data
exist from the camera trapping from those three years and is used to understand
the occurrence and activity patterns of ungulate species. To estimate species occurrence, Bayesian
single-season occupancy framework is used.
This paper will provide the
first published baseline data of occurrence and activity patterns of ungulates
in the ERL. Bayesian statistics offer advantages over the conventional/Frequentist statistics (Dennis 1996; Ellison 1996; Wade
2001; Dorazio 2016), and have been regularly used in
wildlife data analysis in recent years (see Royle
& Dorazio 2008; Parent & Rivot
2012; Kery & Royle
2015; Dorazio 2016). One of the advantages of Bayesian
statistics is incorporating pre-existing data (see Dennis 1996) or prior
knowledge into the analysis. The
baseline data from this paper can therefore be incorporated into Bayesian
analysis in future ungulate occurrence or occupancy studies in the ERL.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study area
The ~4,186km2 forested ERL (Fig. 1) is managed by three main
agencies. Endau Rompin
State Park Pahang, (approximately 578km2) and Pahang Permanent
Reserved Forests (PRFs; approximately 624km2) are administered by
the State Forestry Department of Pahang, while Johor PRFs (approximately
2,506km2) are managed by the State Forestry Department of
Johor. Endau Rompin Johor National Park (approximately 478km²) is
overseen by the Johor National Parks Corporation. The national park is mainly lowland and
hill dipterocarp forest while the PRFs are
predominantly lowland dipterocarp forest (Gumal et al. 2014).
The conservation status of the seven species of ungulates for the states
of Johor and Pahang are different (Table 1). In the former, due to the Sultan
of JohorÕs decree, there have been no approvals for permits for hunting of
protected ungulates since 2010, except in cases where these animals have been
shown to harm humans or their property.
In such instances, applications still have to be approved by the
Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP). In Pahang, permits to hunt are only
extended to the Greater Mousedeer, Lesser Mousedeer and Wild Boar.
Data collection
The camera trapping exercise was carried out during the years 2011, 2013
and 2015 in the ERL. For each camera trapping year, camera traps were set up from early
June to December and each camera trap station operated for an average of 70
trap nights (Appendix 1). Average
spacing between camera trap stations, calculated based on the distance of a
camera trap station to the nearest camera trap station, using the R package secr (Efford 2016), was
approximately 2–3 km (Appendix 1).
Camera traps were placed on animal trails and logging roads to increase
wildlife detection probability (see Karanth et al.
2002; Karanth & Nichols 2002; Sunarto
et al. 2013). Two camera traps,
positioned about 7m apart, were set up approximately 45cm above ground level at
each station (see Karanth et al. 2002; Karanth & Nichols 2002).
The camera traps used were Bushnell Trophy Cam With Viewscreen,
Bushnell Trophy Cam Aggressor Brown, Panthera V3, Panthera V4 and Panthera V5. Bushnell camera traps were configured to
capture videos, while Panthera camera traps were
configured to capture photos. No
difference in probability of detection between camera modes was assumed because
video footage and still-photography seem to share similar capture success rates
(Glen et al. 2013). At the end of
deployment, all the images and videos were reviewed and audited or
counter-checked by WCS - Malaysia Program researchers. Wildlife images of uncertain
identification, particularly of Bearded Pig and Wild Boar, were sent to Daniel
Kong who is experienced in wildlife identification for review. Images that could not be positively
identified were excluded from the analyses. Due to difficulty in distinguishing
Greater Mousedeer from Lesser Mousedeer from camera trap photos, the two
species were grouped as Mousedeer spp.
Table 1. Conservation
status of ungulates in the Endau Rompin landscape,
Peninsular Malaysia from various sources.
Common name |
Scientific name |
Protection of Wildlife Conservation Act
2010 |
Red List of mammals for peninsular
Malaysia 2010 |
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017
|
Barking Deer |
Muntiacus muntjak |
Protected, but moratorium on hunting
them |
Near Threatened |
Least Concern |
Bearded Pig |
Sus barbatus |
Totally Protected |
Near Threatened |
Vulnerable |
Greater Mousedeer |
Tragulus napu |
Protected but can be hunted with a
permit in Pahang only |
- |
Least Concern |
Lesser Mousedeer |
Tragulus kanchil |
Protected but can be hunted with a
permit in Pahang only |
- |
Least Concern |
Malayan Tapir |
Tapirus indicus |
Totally Protected |
Near Threatened |
Endangered |
Sambar Deer |
Rusa unicolor |
Protected, but moratorium on hunting
them |
Vulnerable |
Vulnerable |
Wild Boar |
Sus scrofa |
Protected but can be hunted with a
permit in Pahang only |
- |
Least Concern |
Occupancy analysis
To estimate species occurrence, detection and non-detection data of
ungulates from years 2011, 2013 and 2015 from the ~2,471km2
occurrence study area (Fig. 1) were analysed for Bayesian single-season
occupancy. Camera trap
stations set up in the study area increased from 131 camera trap stations in
2011 to 138 camera trap stations in 2013 and to 155 camera trap stations in
2015 (Appendix 1).
A sampling occasion was defined as a 24-hour period (Shannon et al.
2014). A species was recorded as
detected (1) or not detected (0) on each occasion for each camera trap station,
generating a species-specific detection history. Periods that were less than 24
hours, for example when camera traps were inactive or malfunctioning were
recorded as not available (NA). Stolen
camera trap stations that yielded no data were excluded.
ÒBoccSSÓ function of the R package wiqid (Meredith 2016) was used to estimate the detection
and occupancy probabilities (see MacKenzie et al.
2002; 2006) for each species for a season in a Bayesian framework based on
species-specific detection histories.
Uninformative priors were used because there was no recent published
occupancy papers or occupancy study in the landscape to provide such information. To ensure convergence, a total of 45,000
iterations were used after a discarded burn-in of 1,000 iterations.
Each camera trap station represented a sampling point (Efford & Dawson 2012) instead of a fixed-size plot,
allowing estimation of the true Òproportion of area used/occupiedÓ by a species
(MacKenzie & Royle
2005; Efford & Dawson 2012). The conventional occupancy definition is
not applicable in this paper because the animals do not remain in front of the
camera traps all the time as opposed to the Efford
& Dawson (2012) definition that the animal uses or is always found in the
occupied area. Therefore, instead
of occupancy, the authors opted to use the term occurrence to represent the
probability of a camera trap station used by at least one individual. Due to the by-catch nature of the data,
however, modelling with site-specific variables is not explored in this
paper. This is because the original
study is not designed to investigate how site-specific variables will affect
occurrence. The authors do not wish
to mislead readers to biased estimates.
Daily activity
pattern analysis
A total of 238 camera trap stations in the ~3,454km2 study
area (Fig. 1) in 2015 produced a total of 18,254 trap nights. Each camera trap station operated for an
average of 76.7 trap nights. Camera trap data from the year 2015 was used for
this analysis because of potential variation in activity patterns from one year
to another (McDonough & Loughry 1997; Blake et
al. 2012). Activity patterns of
terrestrial animals may change in response to food availability (Schnurr et al. 2004), hunting (Kitchen et al. 2000; Gray & Phan 2011), habitat
conversion (Presley et al. 2009) and habitat fragmentation (Norris et al.
2010).
To ensure independence, detections of a species that were captured
within 30 minutes of previous triggers of the same species at the same location
were excluded (Ridout & Linkie
2009; Linkie & Ridout
2011). After conversion of capture
times into radians, density Plot function of the R package overlap (Meredith
& Ridout 2016) was used to fit a kernel density
function to the radian data (see Fern‡ndez-Dur‡n
2004) and plot a probability density distribution of a photo or video being
captured within any particular interval of the day, also known as daily
activity pattern (Linkie & Ridout
2011). In the ERL, from July to
December 2015, sunrise and sunset times were approximately 07:00 and 19:00
hours respectively (Time and Date AS 2015). From this analysis, camera-trapped
species are classed as diurnal (active during daytime), nocturnal (active
during night), crepuscular (active during twilight and dawn) and cathemeral (irregular active hours).
RESULTS
Occupancy
With an average occurrence of 85% (Table 2), Barking Deer appeared to be
the most widespread ungulate in the camera trap area. Bearded Pig, Malayan Tapir and Wild
Boar, on the other hand, with an average occurrence of 59%, 67% and 67% (Table
2) respectively, were found in more than half of the study area. Mousedeer spp., with an average
occurrence of 67% (Table 2), was the least widespread ungulate in the camera
trap area.
Activity pattern
This study provided insights into the daily activity pattern of
ungulates on old logging roads and animal trails (Images 1–6). Barking Deer (81.7% of observations
between 07:00 and 19:00 hours), Bearded Pig (69.6% of observations between
07:00 and 19:00 hours) and Wild Boar (78.7% of observations between 07:00 and
19:00 hours) were mostly diurnal (Table 3). Malayan Tapir (15.9% of observations
between 0700 and 1900 hours) was strongly nocturnal (Table 3). Mousedeer spp. (51.0% of observations
between 07:00 and 19:00 hours) appeared to be crepuscular (Fig. 2) and Sambar Deer (58.1% of observations between 07:00 and 19:00
hours) appeared to be cathemeral (Fig. 2). Through simulations, Rowcliffe
et al. (2014) found that with a sample size of 20, the kernel model described
by Ridout & Linkie
(2009) consistently produced <20% median bias. Due to the small sample size
of Sambar Deer (n = 15), we made no conclusion about
its activity pattern.
Table 2. Bayesian single-season
occupancy estimates of each ungulate species for each camera
trapping year, with 95% highest density intervals in parentheses. Number
of camera trap stations (n) for each year was also included. Sambar Deer was excluded because of small sample size.
Species |
2011 (n = 131) |
2013 (n = 138) |
2015 (n = 155) |
Mean occurrence |
Barking Deer |
0.83 (0.76–0.90) |
0.82 (0.75–0.88) |
0.89 (0.84–0.93) |
0.85 |
Bearded Pig |
0.56 (0.46–0.66) |
0.65 (0.56–0.72) |
0.57 (0.50–0.63) |
0.59 |
Malayan Tapir |
0.73 (0.63–0.83) |
0.71 (0.62–0.80) |
0.57 (0.49–0.64) |
0.67 |
Mousedeer spp. |
0.45 (0.36–0.54) |
0.41 (0.33–0.49) |
0.28 (0.23–0.34) |
0.38 |
Wild Boar |
0.69 (0.61–0.78) |
0.75 (0.67–0.83) |
0.50 (0.42–0.59) |
0.67 |
Table 3. Number of
independent captures, and percentage of captures from sunrise (07:00 hours) to
sunset (19:00 hours), for each ungulate species.
Species |
Number of independent captures |
Percentage of captures from
07:00–19:00 hours (%) |
Barking Deer |
1393 |
81.7 |
Bearded Pig |
714 |
69.6 |
Malayan Tapir |
361 |
15.9 |
Mousedeer spp. |
387 |
51.0 |
Sambar Deer |
15 |
58.1 |
Wild Boar |
222 |
78.7 |
DISCUSSION
Occupancy
Proxy of vegetation cover using normalized difference vegetation index,
measure of terrain ruggedness using digital elevation models, distance to
closest roads as a proxy of human disturbance and habitat classification based
on high-resolution satellite images are a few of the site-specific variables
which can be incorporated into the occupancy analysis. Modelling with site-specific variables,
however, is not encouraged due to the by-catch nature of the data. A different sampling strategy and
greater sampling efforts to include data on variables will be required to study
the correlation between site-specific variables and occurrence.
Bearded Pig and Wild Boar are known to forage in oil palm plantations
that lie adjacent to forests (Hone 1995; Maddox et al. 2007; Luskin et al. 2013).
Considered as agricultural pests, they can be eradicated (with permits)
under the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010.
The effect of hunting pressure along forest-plantation edge habitats on
the occurrence of bearded pig and wild boar is unknown. This is because data is not easily
available for firearms and frequency of hunting incidents, and terrain and food
availability, which in turn affect Bearded Pig and Wild Boar occurrence along
forest-plantation edge habitats.
And it is difficult to analyse this problem via an occupancy design or
camera trap by-catch data.
A second reason for the difficulty to analyse is the three management
systems in the landscape, i.e. protection and law enforcement effort is
different between the national parks and PRFs. Johor National Parks Corporation
maintains a 24-hour presence at the national park entrances of Peta and Selai. Patrols are conducted in the national
park sporadically. The state
forestry department of Johor mainly maintains daytime monitoring of PRFs where
there is ongoing logging activity. Logging road gates are placed at most of
the PRF entrances to deny unauthorized vehicle access but not intruders on foot
or by motorbikes. Finally, the DWNP
is supposed to be patrolling both areas as they have jurisdiction. It is not clear how these odd
differences in protection and enforcement effort can affect ungulate occupancy
in the landscape as the study area is a contiguous
forested habitat that allows unimpeded wildlife movement.
Activity pattern
Mostly diurnal, the Barking Deer, Bearded Pig and Wild Boar exhibited
two activity peaks, in the morning after sunrise and in the late afternoon
around sunset (Fig. 2). There
appears to be a reduction in activity in the afternoon. In the tropical
rainforest, primates and flying foxes have long been observed with twin
activity peaks (Chivers 1980; Bennett & Caldecott
1989; Gumal 2004) when they were observed using scan
sampling. The lull in activity tended to be around mid-day when the sun was
strongest. During these periods,
these guilds of animals were often seen resting and in the case of flying
foxes, fanning to cool their dark bodies (Gumal
2004). The lull for the ungulates
could be driven by a similar biological requirement to cool their bodies during
the hottest part of the day, thus resting in shade or reducing their foraging activity. The lull could also be exaggerated as
the camera traps tended to be set up at old logging roads and animal trails
where shade was limited. Harsh sunlight in the afternoon could have deterred
ungulates from using the roads or trails.
In conjunction with activity pattern analysis, a forest canopy cover
study (see Korhonen et al. 2006) should reveal if
ungulate avoidance of logging roads and animal trails depends on the amount of
sunlight in the afternoon.
Daily activity pattern can also be potentially used as a proxy to
monitor the status of ungulates in the ERL. Activity patterns of mammals were
affected by human disturbance and hunting (Gray &
Phan 2011).
In the Kaeng Krachan
National Park, Ngoprasert et al. (2017) found that
leopards became more diurnal in the absence of tourist activity. Several
studies further noted that poached species became more nocturnal in response to
high hunting pressure (Di Bitetti et al. 2008; Ohashi et al. 2013; van Doormaal
et al. 2015). A change in daily
activity pattern, particularly an increase in nocturnal activity, therefore,
can serve as a potential indicator of human disturbance and hunting. If such a
change is observed in conservation area, we recommend that immediate studies be
undertaken to investigate the cause.
REFERENCES
Aihara, Y., T. Hosaka, M.
Yasuda, M. Hashim & S. Numata
(2016). Mammalian
wildlife tourism in South-East Asian tropical
rainforests: The case of Endau Rompin National Park,
Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 28(2):
167–181.
Ancrenaz, M., A.J. Hearn, J. Ross, R. Sollmann & A. Wilting (2012). Handbook for Wildlife
Monitoring Using Camera-traps. BBEC II
Secretariat, Sabah, 71pp.
Bennett,
E.L. & J.O. Caldecott (1989).
Primates of Peninsular Malaysia, pp. 355–363. In: Lieth, H. & M.J.A. Werger
(eds.). Ecosystems of the World Volume 14B: Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, xvii+713pp.
Blake,
J.G., D. Mosquera, B.A. Loiselle,
K. Swing, J. Guerra & D. Romo (2012). Temporal activity patterns
of terrestrial mammals in lowland rainforest of Eastern Ecuador. Ecotropica 18: 137–146.
Burhanuddin, H.M.N., K. Hassan, S. Samsuddin,
O. Shahruddin & A.M. Tajuddin
(1995). A survey
on the distribution of large mammals in Endau Rompin
State Park, Johor. The Journal of Wildlife and
Parks (Malaysia) 14: 16–25.
Chivers, D.J. (1980). Malayan Forest Primates: Ten YearsÕ Study
in Tropical Rain Forest. Springer, New York, 364pp.
Davison, G.W.H. & B.H. Kiew (1987).
Mammals of Ulu Endau, Johore, Malaysia. Malayan
Nature Journal 41: 435–439.
Dennis,
B. (1996). Discussion: Should
ecologists become bayesians? Ecological
Applications 6(4): 1095–1103; http://doi.org/10.2307/2269594
Di
Bitetti, M.S., A. Paviolo,
C.A. Ferrari, C.D. Angelo & Y. Blanco (2008). Differential responses to
hunting in two sympatric species of Brocket Deer (Mazama
americana and M. nana). Biotropica 40(5): 636–645; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00413.x
Dorazio, R.M. (2016). Bayesian data analysis in population
ecology: motivations, methods, and benefits. Population Ecology 58:
31–44; http://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-015-0503-4
DWNP (2010). Red List of Mammals for
Peninsular Malaysia. Department of Wildlife and
National Parks, Kuala Lumpur, 150pp.
Efford, M.G. (2016). secr:
Spatially Explicit Capture-recapture Models. In: R Development Core Team, R
Package. 3.3.1. Edition. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Efford, M.G. & D.K. Dawson (2012). Occupancy in continuous
habitat. Ecosphere 3(4): 32;
http://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00308.1
Ellison,
A.M. (1996). An introduction to bayesian inference for
ecological research and environmental decision-making. Ecological
Applications 6(4): 1036–1046; http://doi.org/10.2307/2269588
Francis,
C.M. (2008). A Guide to the Mammals of Southeast Asia. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 392pp.
Fern‡ndez-Dur‡n, J.J. (2004). Circular distributions based on nonnegative
trigonometric sums. Biometrics 60(2): 499–503; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00195.x
Gray, T.N.E. & C. Phan
(2011). Habitat preferences and activity patterns of the larger mammal
community in Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary,
Cambodia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 59(2):
311–318.
Glen,
A.S., S. Cockburn, M. Nichols, J. Ekanayake & B.
Warburton (2013). Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals. PLoS One 8(6): e67940; http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067940
Goldthorpe, G. & S.H. Neo (2011). A preliminary
investigation into the effects of hunting on three large ungulate species in
Peninsular Malaysia, with implications for tiger conservation. Malayan Nature Journal 63(3): 549–560.
Gumal, M. (2004). Diurnal home range and
roosting trees of a maternity colony of Pteropus
vampyrus natunae (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) in Sedilu, Sarawak. Journal of Tropical Ecology
20: 247–258; http://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467403001275
Gumal, M., B.M.S. Abu Bakar,
Mohd Nawayai Yasak, S.H. Liang, BPY-H. Lee, C.P. Low, Hasnizam
Hamzah, D. Kong, D. Magintan,
D.T.Y Ten, B.Z. Ahmad Zulfi, B.A. Azmi,
B.K. Norhidayati, P.Y. Thai, M.F. Voon,
F.F.M. Cheong & S. Ng (2014).
Small-medium wild cats of Endau Rompin
Landscape in Johor, Peninsular Malaysia. Cat News Special Issue
8: 10–18.
Hone,
J. (1995). Spatial
and temporal aspects of vertebrate pest damage with emphasis on feral pigs.
Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 311–319; http://doi.org/10.2307/2405098
IUCN (2017). IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2016.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Accessed on 19 March 2017.
Karanth, K.U., N.S. Kumar & J.D. Nichols (2002). Field surveys: Estimating absolute densities
of tigers using capture-recapture sampling, pp. 139–152. In: Karanth, K.U. & J.D. Nichols (eds.). Monitoring
Tigers and Their Prey: A Manual for Researchers, Managers and Conservationists
in Tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, 193pp.
Karanth, K.U. & J.D. Nichols (2002). Monitoring Tigers and Their Prey: A
Manual for Researchers, Managers and Conservationists in Tropical Asia.
Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, 193pp.
Karanth, K.U. & M.E. Sunquist
(1995). Prey selection
by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology
64(4): 439-450; http://doi.org/10.2307/5647
Kawanishi, K. (2002). Population status of
Tigers (Panthera tigris)
in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. PhD Thesis. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of
Florida, Florida, 126pp.
Kawanishi, K., G.R. Clements, M. Gumal,
G. Goldthorpe, M.N. Yasak
& D.S.K. Sharma (2013). Using BAD
for good: How best available data facilitated a precautionary policy change to
improve protection of the prey of the Tiger Panthera
tigris in Malaysia. Oryx
47(3): 420–426; http://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312000294
Kery, M. & J.A. Royle
(2015). Applied
Hierarchical Modeling in Ecology: Analysis of Distribution, Abundance and
Species Richness in R and BUGS. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
808pp.
Kitchen, A.M., E.M. Gese
& E.R. Schauster (2000). Changes in coyote activity patterns due to
reduced exposure to human persecution. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:
853–857; http://doi.org/10.1139/z00-003
Korhonen, L., K.T. Korhonen,
M. Rautiainen & P. Stenberg (2006). Estimation
of forest canopy cover: A comparison of field measurement techniques. Silva Fennica 40(4): 577–588; http://doi.org/10.14214/sf.315
Liang,
S.H. (2015). Refining
camera-trapping set up for smaller-sized animals. Unpublished MSc Thesis.
National University of Singapore, Singapore, 135pp.
Luskin, M.S., E.D. Christina, L.C. Kelley &
M.D. Potts (2013). Modern hunting
practices and wild meat trade in the oil palm plantation-dominated landscapes
of Sumatra, Indonesia. Human Ecology 2014: 1–11; http://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9606-8
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, G.B. Lachman, S. Droege, J.A. Royle & C.A. Langtimm (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when
detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83(8):
2248–2255; http://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:ESORWD]2.0.CO;2
MacKenzie, D.I. & J.A. Royle
(2005). Designing occupancy
studies: General advice and allocating survey effort. Journal of Applied
Ecology 42: 1105–1114; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01098.x
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock, L.L. Bailey & J.E. Hines (2006). Occupancy Estimation and Modeling:
Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence. Academic
Press, Massachusetts, 344pp.
Maddox, T., D. Priatna,
E. Gemita & A. Salampessy
(2007). The Conservation of Tigers and Other Wildlife in Oil Palm
Plantations. Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. Zoological Society of London, London, 62pp.
McDonough, C.M. & W.J. Loughry (1997). Influences on activity patterns in a population of
nine-banded armadillos. Journal of Mammalogy
78(3): 932–941; http://doi.org/10.2307/1382953
Meredith,
M. (2016). wiqid: Estimation Functions for Wildlife
Population Models. In: R Development Core Team, R Package. 3.3.1. Edition. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Meredith, M. & M. Ridout
(2016). overlap: Estimates of Coefficient of Overlapping for
Animal Activity Patterns. In: R Development Core Team, R Package. 3.3.1.
Edition. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria.
Milton,
O. (1963). Field
Notes on Wildlife Conservation in Malaya. American Committee for
International Wildlife Protection, New York, 28pp.
Ngoprasert, D., A.J. Lynam
& G.A. Gale (2017). Effects of temporary closure of a national park on leopard movement
and behaviour in tropical Asia. Mammalian
Biology 82: 66-73; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2016.11.004
Norris, D., F. Michalski
& C.A. Peres (2010).
Habitat patch size modulates terrestrial
mammal activity patterns in Amazonian forest fragments. Journal of Mammalogy 91(3): 551–560; http://doi.org/10.1644/09-MAMM-A-199.1
OÕConnell,
A.F. & L.L. Bailey (2011).
Inference for occupancy and occupancy dynamics, pp.
191–205. In: OÕConnell, A.F., J.D. Nichols & K.U. Karanth (eds.). Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Method
and Analyses. Springer, Berlin, 271pp.
OÕConnell,
A.F., J.D. Nichols & K.U. Karanth (2011). Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Method
and Analyses. Springer, Berlin, 271pp.
Ohashi, H., M. Saito, R. Horie,
H. Tsunoda, H. Noba, H.
Ishii, T. Kuwabara, Y. Hiroshige, S. Koike, Y.
Hoshino, H. Toda & K. Kaji (2013). Differences in the activity pattern of the
Wild Boar Sus scrofa
related to human disturbance. European Journal of Wildlife Research
59(2): 167–177; http://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-012-0661-z
Parent, E. & E. Rivot
(2012). Introduction to Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling for Ecological
Data. CRC Press, Florida, 427pp.
Presley,
S.J., M.R. Willig, I. Castro-Arellano & S.C.
Weaver (2009). Effects of habitat conversion on temporal activity patterns of phyllostomid bats in lowland Amazonian rain forest. Journal
of Mammalogy, 90(1): 210–221; http://doi.org/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-089.1
Linkie, M. & M.S. Ridout
(2011). Assessing
tiger-prey interactions in Sumatran rainforests. Journal of Zoology 284:
224–229; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00801.x
Ramakrishnan, U., R.G. Cocc
& N.W Pelkey (1999). Tiger decline caused by reduction of large
ungulate prey: evidence from a study of leopard diets in southern India. Biological
Conservation 89:113-120; http://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00159-1
Rayan, D.M. & M. Linkie
(2015). Conserving
tigers in Malaysia: A science-driven approach for eliciting conservation policy
change. Biological Conservation 184: 18–26; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.024
Ridout, M.S. & M. Linkie
(2009). Estimating
overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data. Journal of
Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 14(3): 322–337;
http://doi.org/10.1198/jabes.2009.08038
Rowcliffe, J.M., R. Kays, B.
Kranstauber, C. Carbone & P.A. Jansen (2014). Quantifying levels of animal activity using
camera trap data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5:1170-1179; http://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12278
Royle, J.A. & R.M. Dorazio
(2008). Hierarchical
Modeling and Inference in Ecology: The Analysis of Data from Populations, metapopulations and communities. Academic
Press, California, 444pp.
Schnurr, J.L., C.D. Canham,
R.S. Ostfeld & R.S. Inouye (2004). Neighborhood analyses of small-mammal
dynamics: Impacts on seed predation and seedling establishment. Ecology
85(3): 741–755; http://doi.org/10.1890/02-0644
Shannon,
G., J.S. Lewis & B.D. Gerber (2014). Recommended survey designs for occupancy modeling using motion-activated
cameras: insights from empirical wildlife data. PeerJ
2:e532; http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.532
Sunarto, R. Sollmann, Azlan Mohamed & M.J. Kelly (2013). Camera trapping for the
study and conservation of tropical carnivores. Raffles Bulletin of
Zoology 28: 21–42.
Time
and Date AS (2015). Johor Bahru, Malaysia - Sunrise, Sunset, and Daylength.
June to December 2015. <www.timeanddate.com/sun/malaysia/johor-bahru>.
Accessed on 5 October 2016.
Trolliet, F., M. Huynen, C.
Vermeulen & A. Hambuckers
(2014). Use of camera
traps for wildlife studies. A review. Biotechnology,
Agronomy, Society and Environment 18(3): 446–454.
van Doormaal, N., H. Ohashi, S. Koike & K. Kaji
(2015). Influence of human
activities on the activity patterns of Japanese sika
deer (Cervus nippon)
and wild boar (Sus scrofa)
in Central Japan. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61(4):
517–527; http://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0922-8
Wade,
P.R. (2001). The
conservation of exploited species in an uncertain world: novel methods and the
failure of traditional techniques, pp. 119–167. In: Reynolds, J., G.M.
Mace, K.H. Redford & J.G. Robinson (eds.). Conservation of Exploited Species. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 548pp.
Appendix 1. Camera
trapping details and efforts.
Year |
Average spacing between camera trap
stations (km) |
Total camera trap stations for occupancy
analysis |
Total trap nights |
Average trap nights per camera trap |
2011 |
3.2 |
131 |
9401 |
71.8 |
2013 |
3.2 |
138 |
10160 |
73.6 |
2015 |
2.5 |
155 |
11399 |
73.5 |