Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 July 2018 | 10(8): 12008–12017

Camera-trapping survey to assess diversity, distribution and photographic capture rate of terrestrial mammals in the aftermath of the ethnopolitical conflict in Manas National Park, Assam, India

Dipankar Lahkar ¹, M. Firoz Ahmed ², Ramie H. Begum ³, Sunit Kumar Das ⁴, Bibhuti Prasad Lahkar ⁵, Hiranya K. Sarma ⁶ & Abishek Harihar ⁷

^1,3 Department of Life Science and Bioinformatics, Assam University (Diphu campus), Diphu, Karbi Anglong, Assam 782462, India

^1,2,5 Aaranyak, 13, Tayab Ali Byelane, Bishnu Rabha Path, Guwahati, Assam, 781028, India

⁴ WWF-India, Parvati Nagar, Tezpur, Assam, 784001,India

⁶ Office of the Field Director, Manas Tiger Reserve, Assam Forest Department, Barpeta Road, Barpeta, Assam 781315, India

⁷ Panthera, 8 West 40^th Street, 18^th Floor, New York, 10018, USA

⁷ Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF), 3076/5, IV Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore 570002, India

¹ dipankar.lahkar@gmail.com, ² mfa.aaranyak@gmail.com (corresponding author), ³ ani.ara73@gmail.com, ⁴ sunit.das219@gmail.com, ⁵ bplahkar@gmail.com, ⁶ hiranya1961@gmail.com, ⁷ harihar.abishek@gmail.com

Abstract: Information on the presence and distribution of species is crucial for conservation planning and management within a region. Documentation of species assemblages in Manas National Park (MNP) in the aftermath of conflict is critical for informed conservation interventions. For nearly two decades (1990–2010), conservation efforts in MNP were compromised by ethno−political conflict. We conducted camera trapping surveys of terrestrial mammals across three administrative forest ranges (Panbari, Bansbari and Bhuyanpara) of MNP in 2017. A systematic survey with 118 trap locations accumulated data over 6,173 trap-days. We obtained 21,926 photographs of mammals belonging to 13 families and 25 species, of which 13 are threatened. We calculated photographic capture rate index (PCRI) using independent events. Trap specific PCRI’s were used to map the spatial variation in capture rates. We observed variation in capture rate between Bansbari-Bhuyanpara where conflict ended in 2003 and has remained peaceful, and Panbari, a forest range where conflict ended later in 2016. Our results further indicate lower capture rates of mammalian prey species and small felids, but higher capture rates of four large carnivores in Panbari as opposed to Bansbari-Bhuyanpara. These results highlighted the fact that despite a history of ethno-political conflict in the region, although almost all mammalian species expected to occur in the park were detected and confirmed, present evidence indicated ethno-political conflict influences the distribution of several key species. In depth studies assessing mammalian prey densities, distribution and density are required to further understand the effects of conflict.

Keywords: Camera trap survey, capture rate, ethno-political conflicts, Manas National Park.

doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4039.10.8.12008-12017 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:08554F31-1BC3-40F6-95E4-53E433552DBA

Editor: Dr. James McNamara, The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, California. Date of publication: 26 July 2018 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 4039 | Received 30 January 2018 | Final received 04 June 2018 | Finally accepted 27 June 2018

Citation: Lahkar, D., M.F. Ahmed, R.H. Begum, S.K. Das, B.P. Lahkar, H.K. Sarma & A. Harihar (2018). Camera-trapping survey to assess diversity, distribution and photographic capture rate of terrestrial mammals in the aftermath of the ethnoolitical conflict in Manas National Park, Assam, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(8): 12008–12017; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4039.10.8.12008-12017

Copyright: © Lahkar 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: Government of India, Government of Assam, IUCN-KfW and Panthera.

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Author Details: Dipankar Lahkar has worked on tiger research and conservation across different landscapes in India in general and Manas National Park in particular since 2009. His prime research interest is on population ecology. Currently he is pursuing PhD on ecology of tigers and also working as a biologist at Aaranyak. M Firoz Ahmed has been involved in conservation research on herpetofauna and tigers India since 1998. He has worked on herpetofauna and reported new species to science. He has lead tiger research work in Kaziranga, Orang, Manas and Namdapha National Parks and currently focuses in the Transboudary Manas Conservation Area (TraMCA) tiger landscape. He currently heads the Tiger Research and Conservation Division of Aaranyak. Ramie H Begum is a Biomedical scientist working in the field of animal disease monitoring and surveillance for more than 14 years. A DBT overseas associate and a visiting professor at University of California, USA, she currently Heads the Department of Life Science and Bioinformatics at Assam University Diphu Campus. Sunit Kumar Das has worked in the field of wildlife conservation since 2006 in India. With the key interest of understanding human-wildlife interaction and wildlife population ecology, he is currently working as a project officer under species division of WWF-India. Bibhuti Prasad Lahkar has worked on grassland ecology and management in Manas National Park since 2000 and currently works as a conservation biologist with research interest on obligate grassland fauna, Asian elephant, mitigation of human wildlife conflict, invasive plant species and conservation livelihood. He is currently a scientist at Aaranyak. Hiranya Kumar Sarma is an Indian Forest Service Officer serving in the department of Forest and Environment, Assam since 1982. He is a forest manager with experience and interests in forestry, wildlife and ecology. He is also a keen wildlife photographer. Currently he is serving as the Field Director, Manas Tiger Reserve. Abishek Harihar has worked on tiger conservation in northern India since 2003 and currently works as a tiger population ecologist, with research interests spanning population ecology, law enforcement monitoring, measuring conservation effectiveness, and conservation decision making. He is currently a population ecologist at Panthera and Adjunct Scientist at Nature Conservation Foundation-India.

Author Contribution: DL - field data collection, analysis and manuscript writing; MFA - developed the idea, manuscript writing and supervised the project; RHB - manuscript writing and guided DL; SKD - conducted field survey; BPL - contributed to the manuscript; HKS - contributed to the manuscript and lead the joint team; AH - data analysis and manuscript.

Acknowledgements: We are thankful to Forest Department, Government of Assam and Bodoland Territorial Council for giving opportunity to carry out the survey, and Assam University, Diphu Campus for academic support to the first author. We are grateful to Mr. Anindya Swargowari, IFS, Council Head of the Department of Forest, BTC for his continued support to our research work. We are thankful to Range officers of MNP, Babul Barhma, Kunja Basumatary, Pranab Das and their frontline staff for helping us by providing logistic support during the field surveys. Thanks are also extended to D.D. Boro, Kiran Ch. Basumatary, for sharing field knowledge and administrative supports. This study was made possible through field support by Arif Hussain, Tridip Kumar Sharma, Karpagam Chelliah, Binita Baruwati, Debasish Buragohain, Prosenjit Sheel, Pranit Basumatary, Mukesh Kherkatary, Bhaskor Barukial, Nanka Lakra, Ranjit Urang, Nandeswar Wary, Utpal Das, Dilli Boro, and Nibir Kr. Medhi who took part in this survey. Aaranyak is thankful to Integrated Tiger and Habitat Conservation Programme of IUCN–KfW and Panthera for financial support to carry out this study. Field Director, MNP is thankful to NTCA and Government of Assam for financial support.

Introduction

Information on the presence and distribution of species within a region is crucial for planning and evaluating conservation strategies (Tobler et al. 2008). This is especially true in sites where armed conflict has complicated conservation efforts (Hanson et al. 2009; Daskin & Pringle 2018) and impacted species populations and habitats. There is no general consensus as to whether conflicts have positive impacts on wildlife (through relaxing pressure on wildlife when people avoid combat zones or the decline of extractive industries; Hallagan 1981; Butsic et al. 2015) or negative impacts (through direct killing from the use of ordnance and chemicals or bushmeat hunting by soldiers; Orians & Pfeiffer 1970; de Merode et al. 2007; Beyers et al. 2011). Thus it is critical to assess the effects of conflict on biodiversity.

Manas National Park (MNP), spanning 500km² is located in the eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot. Falling within two administrative districts (Chirang and Baksa) of the state of Assam that are under the administration of the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), this region experienced intense ethno-political conflict in the late 1980s until 2003. During this period the population of Indian Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis was poached out, necessitating a reintroduction program to repopulate the park (Barman et al. 2014). Preliminary studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that the conflict has severely impacted other wildlife species as well (Goswami & Ganesh 2014).

It is noteworthy that 80% of worldwide armed conflicts between 1950 and 2000 overlapped with biodiversity hotspots (Hanson et al. 2009). A more recent analysis from Africa highlights the fact that population trajectories of large mammals fell significantly below replacement levels (i.e., instantaneous rate of increase of population; λ less than 1) with an increase in conflict frequency (Daskin & Pringle 2018). Therefore, documenting species assemblages in the aftermath of conflict is critical to inform subsequent conservation interventions.

In this study we conducted camera trapping surveys across three administrative forest ranges (Panbari, Bansbari and Bhuyanpara) of MNP in 2017 with the aim to (a) document the mammalian species assemblage of the park, and (b) understand the influence of civil conflict on the mammalian assemblage. Given that there is no comparable data on mammal distribution prior to the conflict from the site, it was not possible for us to make direct comparisons of pre and post conflict effects on the mammalian assemblage. Therefore, we evaluated differences in photo capture rates of mammalian prey and large carnivore species between Panbari (a forest range with conflict until 2016) and Bansbari-Bhuyanpara (forest ranges that have been conflict-free since 2003). These two forest sections of MNP differ in their history of conflict but are similar in terrain, climate, vegetation communities, and faunal assemblages. Therefore, we assume our comparisons to serve as a proxy for the effects of conflict.

Material and methods

Study site

MNP, situated in the eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot, is also an UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site, a tiger reserve, an elephant reserve and a biosphere reserve. Contiguous with Royal Manas National Park (RMNP) in Bhutan, it is home to several endangered species. Located in the foothills of the Himalaya, MNP is predominantly flat, with the mountainous regions primarily falling within RMNP, Bhutan. The vegetation of MNP can be broadly classified into eastern wet alluvial grasslands, moist deciduous, and semi-evergreen forests (Champion & Seth 1968).

Spread over Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri districts of the Bodoland Territorial Areas Districts (BTAD) of Assam, much of the forests of the Manas Tiger Reserve (including core area of MNP) experienced large scale deforestation (i.e., conversion of forests to farmland and settlements) during the conflict period leading to the loss of over 40% of primary habitats (Sarma et al. 2008; Lahkar et al. 2012). While political stability was initiated in 2003 with the formation of the BTAD, since 2004, there have been several incidents of ethnic conflict in the region emphasizing the fragile socio-political environment around this site (Web data source: South Asia Terrorism Portal, Satp.org).

The forest ranges of Bansbari and Bhuyanpara have largely remained conflict free since 2003. Occasional conflict in Panbari until 2016 has resulted in our inability to conduct surveys within the forest range. Although we, in collaboration with the park management, have been carrying out long-term biological monitoring using camera traps since 2010 across Bansbari and Bhuyanpara, it was only in 2017 that surveys could be undertaken simultaneously across all three ranges of MNP (Panbari, Bansbari and Bhuyanpara).

Field and analytical methods

We conducted a camera trapping survey in the winter of 2016–17 from 28 December 2016 to 24 February 2017 covering the three ranges of Panbari, Bansbari and Bhuyanpara. We used 4km² grids to guide camera placement. Cameras were operational for 24 hours a day. We used Panthera (New York, USA) V4 & V5 digital white flash passive camera traps mounted on trees, on poles in steel cages customised specifically for the cameras to minimise the damage from wild animals. In total, camera traps were placed at 118 locations (26 in Panbari and 92 in Bansbari-Bhuyanpara; Fig. 1).

We first downloaded photographs from all the trap stations across the park at regular intervals (usually twice a week) and catalogued all captures using Camera Trap File Manager software (Olliff et al. 2014). During the cataloguing process species identity was confirmed based on expert knowledge. We also referred to Menon (2014) to confirm species identity.

The camera traps were operational for 24 hours a day and each day was counted as a trap-day. The trapping effort at different trap locations diferred due to time and days a camera trap was active. On average camera traps were operational for 52.3 trap-days. To calculate the photo-capture rate index (PCRI) of all species captured we first identified independent captures (i.e., captures that were 30-minutes apart for each station). We then divided the number of independent captures obtained at each trap by trap-specific effort (i.e., number of trap-days that a particular trap was active) and expressed the estimate per 100 trap-days (Carbone et al. 2001). Trap specific PCRI were then used to map the spatial variation in capture rates. All maps were created in the open source software QGIS (QGIS Development Team 2012). To assess the difference in PCRI of mammalian prey and large carnivores between Panbari and Bansbari-Bhuyanpara, we summarized species–specific PCRI and tested for differences using a two sample T-test assuming unequal variances. Given that we were conducting a series of significance tests on the same set of data, we set the false discovery rate to 10% and used Benjamini-Hochberg procedure (Benjamini & Hochberg 1995).

Results

Camera trapping effort totaled 6,173 trap-days in 2016–17 spread across MNP. We obtained 21,926 photographs of mammals from which we identified 25 mammal species belonging to 13 families (Appendix 2). Of these, six species are Endangered and seven are Vulnerable as per the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Table 1; IUCN 2017).

In addition to 2016–17, using the data from long term monitoring study in MNP since 2010, we observed presence of number of other species which included Spotted Deer Axis axis (confirmed its eastern range limit in Panbari; Least Concern), Chinese Pangolin Manis pentadactyla (Critically Endangered), Marbled Cat Pardofelis marmorata (Near Threatened), Golden Jackal Canis aureus (Least Concern), and Painted Bat Kerivoula picta (Least Concern).

For mammalian prey and large carnivore species we mapped the spatial variation in photo capture rates across the Park (Figs. 2 & 3). In addition, we assessed the variation in capture rates between Panbari and Bansbari-Bhuyanpara (Figs. 4 & 5). In general our results indicated lower capture rates of mammalian prey species in Panbari as opposed to Bansbari-Bhuyanpara, while for four large carnivore species photo capture rates were higher in Panbari compared to Bansbari-Bhuyanpara. Significant differences in capture rates using a two sample T-test assuming unequal variances were, however, noticed only among four mammalian prey (Barking Deer, Sambar, Gaur and Buffalo) and one large carnivore (Wild Dog) (Figs. 4 & 5) (Appendix 1).

Table 1. Summary of animals recorded in the Manas National Park, Assam, India from 28 December 2016 to 24 February 2017.

	Family	Common name	Scientific name	IUCN category	PCRI (CI 95%)
1	Felidae	Royal Bengal Tiger	Panthera tigris	Endangered	4.84 (3.21–6.47)
2	Felidae	Common Leopard	Panthera pardus	Vulnerable	5.42 (4.05–6.79)
3	Felidae	Clouded Leopard	Neofelis nebulosa	Vulnerable	0.54 (0.08–0.99)
4	Felidae	Leopard Cat	Prionailurus bengalensis	Least Concern	3.19 (2.32–4.06)
5	Felidae	Jungle Cat	Felis chaus	Least Concern	0.25 (0.11–0.40)
6	Canidae	Wild Dog	Cuon alpinus	Endangered	0.62 (0.32–0.92)
7	Cervidae	Barking Deer	Muntiacus muntjak	Least Concern	4.24 (2.99–5.50)
8	Cervidae	Hog Deer	Axis porcinus	Endangered	2.76 (1.24–4.27)
9	Cervidae	Sambar	Rusa unicolor	Vulnerable	22.80 (17.86–27.73)
10	Cervidae	Swamp Deer	Rucervus duvaucelii	Vulnerable	0.41 (0.0–0.92)
11	Suidae	Wild Pig	Sus scrofa	Least Concern	5.45 (4.10–6.79)
12	Bovidae	Gaur	Bos gaurus	Vulnerable	7.20 (5.23–9.15)
13	Bovidae	Wild Water Buffalo	Bubalus arnee	Endangered	3.50 (2.36–4.64)
14	Elephantidae	Asian Elephant	Elephas maximus	Endangered	17.21 (13.36–21.06)
15	Leporidae	Indian Hare	Lepus nigricollis	Least Concern	1.12 (0.59–1.65)
16	Leporidae	Hispid Hare	Caprolagus hispidus	Endangered	0.23 (0.03–0.42)
17	Viverridae	Large Indian Civet	Viverra zibetha	Least Concern	1.30 (0.77–1.82)
18	Viverridae	Small Indian Civet	Viverricula indica	Least Concern	2.69 (1.75–3.62)
19	Viverridae	Common Palm Civet	Paradoxurus hermaphroditus	Least Concern	0.70 (0.29–1.11)
20	Herpestidae	Crab-eating Mongoose	Herpestes urva	Least Concern	0.39 (0.18–0.59)
21	Herpestidae	Common Mongoose	Herpestes edwardsii	Least Concern	0.04 (0.0–0.10)
22	Hystricidae	Malayan Porcupine	Hystrix brachyura	Least Concern	1.51 (0.92–2.09)
23	Ursidae	Asiatic Black Bear	Ursus thibetanus laniger	Vulnerable	0.046 (0.0–0.10)
24	Rhinocerotidae	Indian Rhinoceros	Rhinoceros unicornis	Vulnerable	0.91 (0.10–1.72)
25	Mustelidae	Yellow-throated Marten	Martes flavigula	Least Concern	0.13 (0.03–0.233)

Discussion

Our surveys confirm the presence of 25 mammalian species photo-captured in MNP, 13 of which are threatened species (IUCN 2017). Although the camera trapping surveys underrepresented species groups such as rodents, arboreal and aerial mammals, direct observational records confirm the presence of three species of primates, Capped Langur Trachypithecus pileatus (Vulnerable), Golden Langur Trachypithecus geei (Endangered), and Rhesus Macaque Macaca mulatta (Least Concern). In addition, Black Giant Squirrel Ratufa bicolor (Near Threatened), Himalayan Striped Squirrel Tamiops macclellandi (Least Concern) and one species of Suidae, Pigmy Hog Porcula salvania (Critically Endangered) were also recorded during the period of our long-term biological monitoring. These photo-capture results highlight the fact that despite a long history of ethno-political conflict in the region, almost all mammalian species expected to occur in the region were present and detected during this study, with the exception of Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus (Vulnerable) and Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus (Vulnerable).

It is observed that ethno-political conflict likely has some impacts on abundance and distribution of species and habitats. While the mammalian species assemblage in MNP appears to be intact, we detect differences among photo capture rates of several species between Panbari (a forest range with conflict until 2016) and Bansbari-Bhuyanpara (forest ranges that have been conflict-free since 2003). In general, prey capture rates were higher in Bansbari-Bhuyanpara compared to Panbari, and significant differences were noticed for four mammalian prey species (i.e., Wild Buffalo, Gaur, Sambar and Barking Deer; Fig. 4). Three of these (Wild Buffalo, Gaur and Sambar; over 175kg) are large prey species that are all threatened and particularly vulnerable to poaching (Wolf & Ripple 2016; IUCN 2017). In the case of large mammalian carnivores, however, species capture rates were higher in Panbari compared to Bansbari-Bhuyanpara, although significant differences were noticed only for Wild Dogs (Fig. 5). While it is possible that Panbari acted as a refuge for large carnivores as villagers may have avoided the combat zone, it is also possible that disturbances emanating from the conflict could have depressed large prey populations. Disturbances, however, were more of armed militants camping deep inside the Panbari range two to three years preceding this survey, rather than ethnic conflict as such or severe anthropogenic disturbances due to natural resource collection. Thus, the disturbances within the park during that period were mostly related to hunting (potentially ungulate species) for food by those camping inside as well as subsequent sanitization operations by government forces.

From our study it appears that RMNP in Bhutan situated immediately north of MNP, next to Panbari, likely acted as a refuge, particularly for long ranging carnivore species. This is evidenced by the fact that in 2017 our camera trapping data confirmed presence of eight individual tigers (five males and three females) in Panbari range of which three individuals were captured the previous year (2016) in RMNP (Singye Wangmo pers. comm. 22 January 2018). This also indicates that the large carnivores have taken the advantage of the progressively re-established security in the area and rapidly moved there. The animals probably began using that area as well but did not relocate there - perhaps their ranges are wide enough to use portions of both areas. This may, however, also negatively impact the herbivore population that are still recovering and thus, may take longer to re-establish themselves.

Ideally, long-term data on population trajectories are required to uncover the effects of conflict-related disturbance on populations. MNP offers us the opportunity to compare capture rates of wildlife species across two study blocks that primarily differ in their history of ethno-political conflict. The contiguity within TraMCA (Trans-boundary Manas Conservation Area) certainly has a positive effect contributing to the repopulation of large carnivores in the aftermath of the conflict as RMNP has acted as a refuge for the animals displaced by disturbances in MNP. Ahmed et al. (2015) have highlighted the trans-boundary importance of the TraMCA based on data obtained through synchronized camera trapping exercises across the boundary. The present study further highlights the importance of large and contiguous conservation areas for the conservation of biodiversity.

Our study found camera trapping to be an effective method to document particularly rare and elusive mammalian species and their relative abundance across the park. Photographic capture-recapture methods could help assess the population trajectories of individually identifiable species such as tigers, leopards, clouded leopards and leopard cats. Additionally, the baselines we set through this study could be used to monitor future changes in the capture rates of several species, especially those which are not individually identifiable (e.g., Wild Dogs and Jungle Cats).

In conclusion, we present evidence that ethno-political conflict has likely influenced the spatial variation of several species in Manas National Park. It is critical, however, to note that more detailed studies assessing mammalian prey densities, distribution and density of large carnivores and correlation with specific factors emanating from conflict are required to further understand the effects of conflict and peacetime conservation efforts on the species assemblage and abundances.

References

Ahmed, M.F., S. Wangmo, D. Lahkar, P. Chakraborty, A. Sarmah, J. Borah, D. wangchuk, T. Nidup, T. Wangchuk, H.K. Sarma, A. Harihar & R. Pickles (2015). Tigers of Transboundary Manas Conservation Area, 2016. Aaranyak, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Assam (BTC), Department of forests and Park Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan and WWF-India, Technical Report, Assam, India. 50pp.

Barman, R., B. Choudhury, N.V.K. Ashraf & V. Menon (2014). Rehabilitation of Greater One-horned Rhinoceros calves in Manas National Park, a World Heritage Site in India. Pachyderm 55: 78–88.

Benjamini, Y. & Y. Hochberg (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Bulletin 57: 289–300.

Beyers, R.L., J.A. Hart, A.R.E. Sinclair, F. Grossmann, B. Klinkenberg & S. Dino (2011). Resource wars and conflict ivory: the impact of civil conflict on elephants in the Democratic Republic of Congo - the case of the Okapi Reserve. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27129; http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027129

Butsic, V., M. Baumann, A. Shortland, S. Walker & T. Kuemmerle (2015). Conservation and conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo: The impacts of warfare, mining, and protected areas on deforestation. Biological Conservation 191: 266–273; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.0370006-3207

Carbone, C., S. Christie, K. Conforti, T. Coulson, N. Franklin, J.R. Ginsberg, M. Griffiths, J. Holden, K. Kawanishi, M. Kinnaird, R. Laidlaw, A. Lynam, D.W. Macdonald, D. Martyr, C. McDougal, L. Nath, T. O’Brien, J. Seidensticker, D.J.L. Smith, M. Sunquist, R. Tilson & W.N. Wan Shahruddin (2001). The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4: 75–79; https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943001001081

Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Forest Types of India. Manager of Publications, Government of India, Delhi, 404pp.

Daskin, J. & R.M. Pringle (2018). Warfare and wildlife declines in Africa’s protected areas. Nature 533: 1–5; http://doi.org/10.1038/nature25194

de Merode, E., K.H. Smith, K. Homewood, R. Pettifor, M Rowcliffe & G Cowlishaw (2007). The impact of armed conflict on protected–area efficacy in Central Africa. Biology Letters 3: 299–301; http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0010

Goswami, R. & T. Ganesh (2014). Carnivore and herbivore densities in the immediate aftermath of ethno–political conflict: the case of Manas National Park, India. Tropical Conservation Science 7(3): 475–487; http://doi.org/10.1177/194008291400700308

Hallagan, J.B. (1981). Elephants and the war in Zimbabwe. Oryx 16: 161–164.

Hanson, T., T.M. Brooks, G.A.B. Da Fonseca, M. Hoffmann, J.F. Lamoreux, G. Machlis, C.G. Mittermeier, R.A. Mittermeier & J.D. Pilgrim (2009). Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology 23: 578–587; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01166.x

IUCN (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 20 January 2018.

Lahkar, B.P., S. Nijhawan & M.F. Ahmed (2012). Assessment of local and landscape–level threats to the tiger population of the Manas landscape, Assam, India - Technical Report (Unpublished). Aaranyak, Assam, India, 15pp.

Menon, V. (2014). Indian Mammals - A Field Guide. Hachette Book Publishing India Pvt. Ltd., India, 528pp.

Olliff, E.R.R., C.W. Cline, D.C. Bruen, E.J. Yarmchuk, R.S.A. Pickles & L. Hunter (2014). The Pantheracam− a camera-trap optimizied for monitoring wild felids. Wild Felid Monitoring 7: 21−23.

Orians, G.H. & E.W. Pfeiffer (1970). Ecological effects of the war in Vietnam. Science 168: 544–554.

QGIS Development Team (2012). QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project.

Tobler, M.W., S.E. Carrillo-Percastegui, R.L. Pitman, R. Mares & G. Powell (2008). An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large- and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation 11: 169–178; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00169.x

Wolf, C. & W.J. Ripple (2016). Prey depletion as a threat to the world’s large carnivores. Royal Society Open Science 3(8): 160252; http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160252

Appendix 1. Table for Two sample T-test.

Species	Photographic capture rate index		Two sample T-test
	Panbari	Bansbari-Bhuyanpara	P	df
Mammalian prey
Barking Deer	2.62	4.71	0.0390	104
Hog Deer	3.17	2.64	0.6717	98
Wild Pig	3.70	5.94	0.0865	64
Swamp Deer	0	0.54	0.1085	91
Sambar	11.01	26.13	0.0003	90
Wild Buffalo	0.67	4.71	0.0000	113
Gaur	3.09	8.36	0.0144	50
Porcupine	2.04	1.36	0.3506	41
Indian Hare	1.66	0.97	0.3404	36
Hispid Hare	0.15	0.25	0.5973	59
Carnivores
Wild Dog	1.51	0.38	0.0173	31
Clouded Leopard	1.89	0.16	0.0761	26
Leopard	8.22	4.63	0.1715	27
Tiger	7.54	4.08	0.2976	27
Leopard Cat	1.00	1.07	0.0008	88
Jungle Cat	0.01	0.19	0.0010	91

Appendix 2. Photographs of species recorded in camera traps in this study during 28 December 2016 to 24 February 2017 in the Manas National Park, Assam, India.