Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 July
2019 | 11(9): 14194–14203
Crowding, group size and
population structure of the Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus,
1758) (Mammalia: Cetartiodactyla: Bovidae) in the semi-arid habitat of Haryana,
India
Deepak Rai 1 & Jyoti 2
1,2 Department of Zoology, Kurukshetra University, Thanesar, Kurukshetra,
Haryana 136119, India.
1 drbkuk@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 jyoti.aggroia02@gmail.com
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4788.11.9.14194-14203
Editor: L.A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Date of publication: 26 July
2019 (online & print)
Manuscript details: #4788 | Received 09 January 2019 | Final received 31
May 2019 | Finally accepted 20 June 2019
Citation: Rai, D. & Jyoti (2019). Crowding,
group size and population structure of the Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra
(Linnaeus, 1758) (Mammalia: Cetartiodactyla: Bovidae) in the semi-arid habitat
of Haryana, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 11(9): 14194–14203. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4788.11.9.14194-14203
Copyright: © Rai &
Jyoti 2019. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. JoTT allows
unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium
by adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: None.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author
details: Dr Deepak
Rai is an Assistant Professor in
Department of Zoology, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. His field of
research includes ornithology, animal ecology and wildlife conservation. Ms Jyoti is a research scholar and
pursuing her PhD from Department of Zoology, Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra.
Author
contribution: Deepak Rai and Jyoti conceived and
designed the study. Jyoti collected the field data and prepare rough draft of
the manuscript. Deepak Rai guided the research, analyzed the data and wrote the
final draft of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements:
The authors are grateful to the
Department of Zoology, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, for providing
necessary facilities to successfully carry out this research work. We are thankful to the UGC for providing a
Junior Research Fellowship during the research period.
Abstract: To understand the population growth dynamics and life
history parameters of the Blackbuck, 24 fortnightly visits were made in and
around Lalpur Jheel, Dobhi Village of district Hisar (Haryana) from March 2017
to February 2018. Scan sampling method
was used to record the Blackbuck population.
In the present study, a total of 68 sightings of Blackbuck were made
including a minimum of one sighting per visit to a maximum of seven sightings
per visit with group size varying from one individual to a maximum of 58
individuals per sighting. The overall
mean group size and crowding of the Blackbuck population were 13.84 ± 1.89 S.E.
and 31.31 (N=941 individuals), respectively.
The population structure of Blackbuck revealed six different age and sex
classes, namely, adult male, adult female, sub-adult male, sub-adult female,
yearling male, and fawn. As far as the
social organization of the Blackbuck is concerned, six different types of
social grouping were recorded, namely lone territorial male (adult male),
unimale-unifemale (adult male and adult female), bachelor herd (adult male(s)/
sub-adult male(s)/ yearling male(s)), mixed herd (adult male(s)/ sub-adult
male(s)/ yearling male(s)/ adult female(s)/ sub-adult female(s)/ fawn(s)),
harem herd (1 adult male/ adult female(s)/ sub-adult female(s)/ fawn(s)), and
female herd (adult female(s)/ sub-adult female(s)/ fawn(s)). It was concluded that Blackbuck shows partial
social organization as both the solitary and herd were observed during the
present study.
Keywords: Antelope,
growth dynamics, Hisar District, Lalpur Jheel, life history parameters, social
organization, ungulates.
Introduction
Grouping behaviour in antelopes is largely accompanied
by predation pressure, but the maximum group size is limited through dispersion
and availability of food resources in a particular area (Jarman 1974). Group size in ungulates also depends on
habitat structure as it increases with habitat openness such as on grasslands
and decreases with dense vegetation as in scrubby forest area (Lagory
1986). In this context a group can be
defined as the numbers of individuals usually present less than 10m apart and
behaving in a coordinated fashion when first observed (Mungall 1978). As we consider the group size, it refers to
the sum of number of individuals belonging to different age classes and having
an integer value n=1 (Ramesh et al. 2012a).
Considering normal distribution of a species,
researchers mostly deal with calculating mean group size of a population in
most of the ecological studies. Due to
changing climatic conditions, however, nowadays normal distribution is
converted into clumped distribution especially in birds and mammals (Reiczigel
et al. 2008). To overcome these
problems, initially Jarman (1974) described a new phenomenon termed as ‘typical
group size’ that reflects the group size as experienced by an average
individual, which was later named as ‘crowding’ by Recizigel et al.
(2008). Crowding can be defined as the
group size as experienced by an individual in a particular group because
average individuals come from a group larger than the mean group size of a
population (Recizigel et al. 2008; Ramesh et al. 2012b).
Under demographic changes over time, age structure is
an important parameter to understand the population dynamics and various life
history parameters (Caughly 1977; Stearns 1992). Along with this, data regarding the sex ratio
of a population reflects the reproductive potential of a species (Ramesh et al.
2012b). In ecosystems, antelopes share
an important role in maintaining the biodiversity that ensures sustainability
of organisms across various trophic levels in the food chain including
predators that feed on antelopes and the plant population on which antelopes
feed. But it is presumed that due to environmental
changes arising through fragmentation, degradation or destruction of natural
habitats, deforestation, agricultural expansion, increased urbanization,
grazing pressure due to enhanced livestock population and more commonly through
illegal hunting and poaching, the population of antelopes is continually
declining. Blackbuck being endemic to
the Indian subcontinent needs more attention to be explored.
The Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus,
1758) is a medium-sized antelope, the only representative of the sub-family
Antilopinae and the genus Antilope (Prater 1971). The word antelope is used to describe a
number of species of the family Bovidae, but the scientific name Antilope
is restricted only to the Blackbuck (Ranjitsinh 1989). It is known as ‘Kala Hiran’ or ‘Krishna
Mriga’ in Hindi due to its distinctive dark brown or black coloration in sharp
contrast to white for which the species is named (Mungall 1978; Ranjitsinh
1989; Jhala 1992). Currently, Blackbuck
is categorized as Least Concern (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2017),
which was previously categorized as Near Threatened (Mallon 2008). Despite the overall habitat loss, the
conservation status of Blackbuck has improved probably due to unintentional
creation of more suitable habitat, i.e., open habitat by converting dense scrub
land and woodland to agricultural area (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group
2017). On the other hand, farmers are
regularly complaining about their crop damage due to crop raiding by Blackbuck
and for this, they are using various protective measures to prevent their crops
which may ultimately lead to changes in the normal ecology of Blackbuck. So, the study of ecology and behaviour of
Blackbuck is becoming important in such areas where a significant number of
Blackbucks are commonly seen by inhabitants and farmers of the villages (Rai
& Jyoti 2018).
A number of studies have been conducted on different
ecological and behavioural aspects of Blackbuck in India (Gupta & Bhardwaj
1990; Gehlot & Jakher 2007, 2011; Kumar & Rahamani 2008; Vats &
Bhardwaj 2009a, b; Mahato et al. 2010; Dookia et al. 2011; Sharma & Sharma
2013; Gangotri & Gangotri 2014; Baskaran et al. 2016; Prashanth et al.
2016; Debata 2017; Sagar & Antony 2017; Meena & Chourasia 2018) and
also in Khairapur, Bardia District, Nepal (Bhatta 2008; Khanal & Chalise
2010). Among these, most of the studies
were conducted in protected areas of India and fewer studies were conducted
outside the protected areas. It is
observed that very few studies regarding the ecological aspects of Blackbuck
have been conducted in Haryana, especially in district Hisar after Ranjitsinh
(1989) who had reported that out of total 4,852 Blackbuck populations in the
state of Haryana, 2,410 individuals of blackbuck were recorded from district
Hisar alone.
The present study was conducted to record the group
size, crowding pattern, herd composition, social behaviour and seasonal
variation in sightings of Blackbuck in Lalpur Jheel, Dobhi Village, Hisar
(Haryana) which would be helpful in understanding the life history parameters
of this species and current status in the study area.
Materials and Methods
Study Area
Lalpur Jheel
is situated in village Dobhi (29.1300N & 75.5050E) of
district Hisar, Haryana (India) at an altitude of 218m and covering an area of
about 340 acres (Fig. 1). This area
exhibits tropical monsoon climate with hot summers and cool winters. The extreme temperatures and scanty rainfall are
unique features of the weather of this area.
Based on the climatic conditions of the area, the year is divided into
four distinct seasons: summer (March to May), monsoon (June to August), autumn
(September to November), and winter (December to February).
In addition to Blackbuck, other ungulate species found
in the area include Nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus and Sambar Rusa
unicolor. As far as the diversity of
flora is concerned, the area includes Kikar Acacia nilotica, Neem Azadirachta
indica, Oak Calotropis procera, Dub Cyaodon dactylon, Shisham
Dalbergia sissoo, Dhatura Datura stramonium, Dhab Desmostachya
bipinnatta, Safeda Eucalyptus sp., Peepal Ficus riligiosa,
Jand Prosopis cineraria, and different types of herbs and shrubs. The study area can be divided into three
major habitats such as agricultural land, fallow land and scrubby forest. Major proportion of the study area is covered
with scrubby forest having small patches of fallow land and surrounded by agricultural
land.
Data Collection and Analysis
To record the
group size and herd composition of Blackbuck, visits every fortnight were
conducted in Lalpur Jheel, Dobhi Village from March 2017 to February 2018. Following Chopra & Rai (2010), scan
sampling method (Altmann 1974) was used to observe Blackbucks using
binoculars. The method of instantaneous
or scan sampling is in use in various forms of behavior studies, as stated in
Altmann (1974), and the method refers to records on current activity of a group
or individual at pre-selected time intervals.
Photographs in the present study were taken with Canon PowerShot SX50HS
digital camera. The time of observation
was divided into three diurnal phases, i.e., morning phase (06.30h to 11.00h),
noon phase (11.00h to 15.00h), and evening phase (15.00h to 18.30h).
On each
sighting of Blackbuck, the number of individuals per group as well as numbers
of such groups were recorded (Arcese et al. 1995), followed by recording of
data on their age and sex classes.
Following Mungall (1978) and Mahato et al. (2010), Blackbucks were
categorized into six different age classes namely, adult males (having long
horns with 3–4 spiral turns with black and white pelage on dorsal and ventral
sides, respectively), sub-adult males (having comparatively short horns with
1–2 spiral horns and dark brown pelage dorsally), yearling males (approximately
one year of age with only short spikes like horns having no spiral turn and
yellowish pelage dorsally) adult females (more than two years of age having
yellowish to tan color dorsally but no spiraling horns), sub-adult females
(approximately 1–2 years of age having similar pelage as of adult females but
comparatively smaller in size than adult females) and fawn (less than six months of age with light
brown pelage but not in contrast to white) including both male and female due
to absence of morphological demarcation.
As far as the
type of herd is concerned, Blackbuck herds were classified into six different
types: lone territorial male (single adult male), unimale-unifemale (one adult
male and one adult female), bachelor herd (adult male(s), sub-adult male(s) and
yearling male(s)), harem herd (single adult male, adult female(s), sub-adult
female(s) and fawn(s)), female herd (adult female(s), sub-adult female(s) and
fawn(s)), and mixed herd (adult male(s), sub-adult male(s), yearling male(s),
adult female(s), sub-adult female(s) and fawn(s)). Along with mean group size of Blackbuck, mean
crowding was also calculated which represents the intensity or infrapopulation
size of group from individual’s point of view (Reiczigel et al. 2005). Both mean group size and mean crowding were
calculated by using program Flocker 1.0 (Reiczigel & Rozsa 2006; Reiczigel
et al. 2008) and obtained data was also cross checked by using the following formulae
as per Jarman (1982) who used typical group size instead of mean crowding.
Number of Blackbucks seen
Mean group size of Blackbuck = –––––––––––––––––––––––––
Number of sightings
where,
xi =
number of individuals in the ith group/sighting
n = number of
groups
N = total
number of individuals
Results
During the
study, a total of 68 sightings of Blackbuck were recorded with a minimum of one
sighting (in 5th and 17th periodic visit) per visit to a
maximum of seven sightings (4th periodic visit) per visit (Fig.
2). During the eighteenth periodic
visit, no sighting of Blackbuck was recorded in the field survey because of the
disturbances caused by plying of vehicles for construction of concrete road in
the study area. As far as the group size
of Blackbuck is concerned, it ranged from 1 to 58 individuals with a mean group
size of 13.84 ± 1.89 S.E. and the mean crowding value was 31.31 (N=941
individuals) (Table 1). The lowest mean
group size and mean crowding was observed during autumn 2017. In contrast to this, the highest mean group
size was observed during winter 2017–18 and the highest mean crowding was
recorded during summer 2017, which indicates clumped distribution of
Blackbuck. Data also revealed that more
than 70% of Blackbuck groups were recorded between group sizes ranging from 1
to 30 individuals in all the seasons.
Fawns were
sighted throughout the year but two peaks were observed, i.e., during summer
and autumn seasons, reflecting that the peak fawning period in Blackbuck are
March to May and September to October.
The average adult male: adult female: fawn ratio of Blackbuck was 25.18:
100: 14.91 (N=573 individuals) (Table 2). It was also observed that adult male:
sub-adult male: adult female: sub-adult female ratio was 35: 100 which was
comparatively higher than the adult male: adult female ratio indicating that
the population of Blackbuck is increasing.
Data regarding the population structure of Blackbuck revealed that of
the 941 individuals of Blackbuck recorded during the one year field survey,
31.15% were males, 62.38% were females, and 6.48% were fawn. Out of 293 male individuals, 35.15% were
adult males, 35.15% were sub-adult males, and 29.70% were yearling males. Similarly, out of 587 female individuals,
69.68% were adult females, and 30.32% were sub-adult females (Table 3).
The
Blackbucks were sighted more in groups than as solitary animals which reflect
their partial social organization. Along
with 18 lone territorial male sightings, 13 mixed herds, 18 bachelor herds, 12
harem herds, five female herds, and two unimale-unifemale herds were recorded
(Fig. 3; Image 1). Detailed information
on seasonal variation in the type of herds observed, group size range and mean
group size is given in Table 4.
Discussion
Mammalian
herbivores, especially ungulates, form groups that are effectively conspicuous
in the field. There are two principle
rationales regarding the group-behaviour of ungulates. The first proposes that when in groups the
animals can counteract or maintain a strategic distance from the predators as
compared to when they are alone and this could be possible through an
assortment of strategies including predator recognition, active group defense
and predator perplexity (Hamilton 1971; Wirtze & Lorscher 1983). Alternative rationale connects the animal’s
social organization with the dispersion and accessibility of its resource
supply (Jarman 1974). According to
previous studies, Blackbucks were seen both solitary and in groups reflecting
their partial social organization. This
is also seen in the present study.
Ranjitsinh (1989) recorded six different types of social grouping of
Blackbuck including solitary female, solitary male, a female with one or two
offspring, females and young-groups, bachelor herd, and mixed herd involving
harem herd also. Isvaran (2007) reported
three different types of herd sightings in Blackbuck namely; all male groups,
female groups, and mixed-sex groups.
During the present study, in the total 68 sightings of Blackbuck, six
different types of social organization were observed including lone territorial
male, unimale-unifemale, mixed, bachelor, harem, and female herds. The occurrence of different types of social
organization was due to the seasonal variation in the distribution and
availability of food resources (Jarman 1974).
Habitat structure, predation pressure and resource availability are the
main ecological factors responsible for the formation of groups (Lott 1991;
Brashares & Arcese 2002) while the group size is mainly determined by
habitat characteristics as it increases with open habitat and decreases with
forested habitat (Leuthold 1970; Lagory 1986).
In Lalpur jheel, the largest herd of 58 individuals was sighted in
fallow land i.e. open habitat which confirms with Ranjitsinh (1982) and Barucha
& Asher (1993) as they also recorded the larger groups of Blackbuck in open
habitat comprising 430 and 200 individuals in Velavadar National Park and
Rehukari Wildlife Sanctuary, respectively.
Predation pressure was not very important in the study area due to the
absence of large carnivores, as ascertained during our periodic visits. One of the major threats emerging to the
Blackbuck population is the rise of feral dog population which was also
reported by Gehlot & Jakher (2007).
They found that 45% mortality in the Blackbuck population is caused by feral
dogs. Along with habitat structure and
predation pressure, resource availability is also one of the major factors
which affect the group size in ungulate population. When resources are distributed in relatively
small and distant areas then it favors small group sizes because in large group
size the cost of competing for food surpasses any possible benefits (Chapman et
al. 1995). The mean group size of
Blackbuck population calculated as per the present study was 13.84 ± 1.89 and
the group size range was 2–58 which was in accordance with the previous studies
from different parts of India (Table 5).
The mean group size parameter is beneficial only when there is normal
distribution of organisms in a particular area, but during recent times clumped
distribution is observed which makes the crowding phenomenon to be useful for
the studies. Similar studies based on
crowding phenomenon had been reported for megaherbivores, however, no such
studies have been conducted on the Blackbuck (Ramesh et al. 2012b). The
highest mean crowding value was recorded during the summer season because of
scarcity of food resources in the study area.
This favours formation of many small herds and only a few large
herds. The crowding value increased as
calculated according to Reiczigel et al. (2008). Fawning period in Blackbuck in Lalpur Jheel
indicates that there was no distinct seasonality but two peaks were observed,
the first during the summer season and second during the autumn season which is
in consonance with observations by Schaller (1967), who reported the two peaks
of fawning in March–April and August–October in Kanha National Park. The adult-male: adult-female ratio from the
study area was low as compared to previous studies as shown in Table 5, which
may be due to the hunting of adult males for its meat and horns which were
further used in Ayurveda and to cure skin diseases. A positive side of this skewed sex ratio is
that a population with more females than males has a higher reproductive
potential than the one which is predominately composed of males (Spillet 1966)
because the adult female: fawn ratio had increased, i.e., 6.70: 1 which was
high as compared to the other study as in the proposed community reserve for
Blackbuck, Ganjam District, Odisha, India (Mahato et al. 2010).
The major
threats to Blackbuck population are habitat loss, human-Blackbuck interaction,
competition with livestock, predation pressure from fox, road kill and killing
by feral dogs that decreases the overall population size in comparison to the
status in past decades in Sorsan grassland, Rajasthan, India (Meena &
Chourasia 2018). In the present study
there were many factors responsible for limited sightings of Blackbuck in the
study area including fragmentation of habitat through the construction of a
concrete road, movement of vehicles, encroachment by cattle and increased feral
dog population, as reported by Gehlot & Jakher (2007) in the Thar Desert of
Rajasthan. This study area requires regular
monitoring and effective conservation strategies as viable population of
Blackbuck were reported both through fortnightly periodic visits as well as
opinion survey findings.
Table 1. Seasonal grouping patterns of Blackbuck in
Lalpur Jheel, Dobhi Village of district Hisar, Haryana (India) from March 2017
to February 2018.
|
Season(s) |
NG |
NA |
LGO |
MC |
MeC |
MGS |
MeGC |
SE |
Group
Size (% of groups) |
|||||
|
1–10 |
11–20 |
21–30 |
31–40 |
41–50 |
˃50 |
|||||||||
|
Summer (March–May) |
20 |
282 |
58 |
35.04 |
36.00 |
14.10 |
6.50 |
3.84 |
60.00 |
20.00 |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.00 |
10.00 |
|
Monsoon (June–August) |
23 |
281 |
43 |
27.33 |
30.00 |
12.22 |
8.00 |
2.83 |
60.87 |
13.04 |
13.04 |
4.35 |
8.70 |
0.00 |
|
Autumn (September–November) |
10 |
107 |
42 |
25.71 |
24.00 |
10.70 |
6.00 |
4.01 |
60.00 |
20.00 |
10.00 |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.00 |
|
Winter (December–February) |
15 |
271 |
53 |
33.77 |
35.00 |
18.07 |
11.00 |
4.35 |
46.67 |
20.00 |
6.67 |
13.33 |
0.00 |
13.33 |
|
Annual
data |
68 |
941 |
58 |
31.31 |
34.00 |
13.84 |
8.00 |
1.89 |
57.35 |
17.65 |
7.35 |
7.35 |
4.41 |
5.88 |
NG—number of groups | NA—number of animals |
LGO—largest group observed | MC—mean crowding | MeC—median crowding | MGS—mean
group size | MeGS—median group size | SE—standard error.
Table 2. Sex ratio of Blackbuck in Lalpur Jheel, Dobhi
Village of district Hisar, Haryana (India) from March 2017 to February 2018.
|
Season(s) |
Adult male |
Adult female |
Fawn |
Number of individuals classified |
|
Summer 2017 (March–May) |
26.12 |
100 |
24.32 |
167 |
|
Monsoon 2017 (June– August) |
29.75 |
100 |
9.92 |
169 |
|
Autumn 2017 (September–November) |
23.53 |
100 |
15.69 |
71 |
|
Winter 2017–18 (December–February) |
20.63 |
100 |
11.11 |
166 |
|
Overall Data |
25.18 |
100 |
14.91 |
573 |
Table 3. Age structure of Blackbuck in Lalpur Jheel,
Dobhi Village of district Hisar, Haryana (India) from March 2017 to February
2018.
|
Season(s) |
AM |
SAM |
YM |
AF |
SAF |
FW |
Total |
||||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
|
Summer
2017 (March–May) |
29 |
10.28 |
31 |
10.99 |
28 |
9.93 |
111 |
39.36 |
56 |
19.86 |
27 |
9.57 |
282 |
|
Monsoon
2017 (June–August) |
36 |
12.81 |
40 |
14.23 |
32 |
11.39 |
121 |
43.06 |
40 |
14.23 |
12 |
4.27 |
281 |
|
Autumn
2017 (September–November) |
12 |
11.21 |
7 |
6.54 |
9 |
8.41 |
51 |
47.66 |
20 |
18.69 |
8 |
7.48 |
107 |
|
Winter
2017–18 (December–February) |
26 |
9.59 |
25 |
9.23 |
18 |
6.64 |
126 |
46.49 |
62 |
22.88 |
14 |
5.17 |
271 |
|
Overall
Data |
103 |
10.95 |
103 |
10.95 |
87 |
9.25 |
409 |
43.46 |
178 |
18.92 |
61 |
6.48 |
941 |
AM—adult male | SAM—sub-adult male
| YM—yearling male | AF—adult female | SAF—sub-adult female | FW—fawn.
Table 4. Seasonal variations in the total sightings of
Blackbuck, group size range and mean group size ± S.E. in Lalpur Jheel, Dobhi
Village from March 2017 to February 2018.
|
Seasons |
Type
of herds seen |
Total
sightings (N) |
Group
size range |
Mean
group size ±S.E. |
|
Summer
2017 (March–May) |
||||
|
|
LTM |
6 |
1 |
1 ± 0 |
|
|
MxH |
7 |
6–58 |
27 ± 8.38 |
|
|
BH |
4 |
2–17 |
7.75 ± 3.22 |
|
|
HH |
2 |
14–35 |
24.5 ±
10.53 |
|
|
FH |
1 |
7 |
7 ± 0 |
|
Monsoon
2017 (June–August) |
||||
|
|
LTM |
6 |
1 |
1 ± 0 |
|
|
UM-UF |
2 |
2 |
2 ± 0 |
|
|
MxH |
2 |
25–32 |
28.5 ± 3.51 |
|
|
BH |
8 |
2–25 |
9.63 ± 2.82 |
|
|
HH |
4 |
13–43 |
32.25 ±
7.11 |
|
|
FH |
1 |
8 |
8 ± 0 |
|
Autumn
2017 (September–November) |
||||
|
|
LTM |
4 |
1 |
1 ± 0 |
|
|
MxH |
2 |
3–24 |
13.5 ±
10.53 |
|
|
BH |
1 |
14 |
14 ± 0 |
|
|
HH |
1 |
42 |
42 ± 0 |
|
|
FH |
2 |
9–11 |
10 ± 1.00 |
|
Winter
2017–18 (December–February) |
||||
|
|
LTM |
2 |
1 |
1 ± 0 |
|
|
MxH |
2 |
7–52 |
29.5 ±
15.05 |
|
|
BH |
5 |
3–11 |
7.4 ± 1.33 |
|
|
HH |
5 |
13–53 |
30.4 ± 7.19 |
|
|
FH |
1 |
21 |
21 ± 0 |
|
Annual
2017–18 |
68 |
2–58 |
13.84
± 1.89 |
|
LTM—lone territorial male | UM-UF—unimale-unifemale |
MxH—mixed herd | BH—bachelor herd | HH—harem herd | FH—female herd.
Table 5. Group size and sex
ratio of Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus, 1758) from protected
areas of India.
|
Study
site |
Group
size |
Adult
male: adult
female |
Source |
|
Lalpur
Jheel, Haryana |
2–58 |
0.25:
1 |
Present
study |
|
Mudmal
Village, Andhra Pradesh |
2–36 |
1:
2.47 |
Prasad
1983 |
|
Point
Calimere Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu |
2–129 |
1:
4.7 |
Nair
1976 |
|
Proposed
Community Reserve for Blackbuck, Ganjam District, Odisha |
2–32 |
1:
1.51 |
Mahato
et al. 2010 |
|
Balipadar-Bhetnoi
Blackbuck Conservation Area, Odisha |
1–51 |
1:
3 |
Debata
2017 |
|
M.C.
Zoological Park, Chhatbir, Punjab |
10–25 |
- |
Vats
& Bhardwaj 2009a |
|
Sorsan
Grassland, Baran District, Rajasthan |
4–100 |
- |
Meena
& Chourasia 2018 |
|
Tal
Chappar Blackbuck Sanctuary, Rajasthan |
- |
1:
1.29 |
Dookia
et al. 2011 |
|
Pipli
Deer Park, Kurukshetra |
8–25 |
- |
Gupta
& Bhardwaj 1990 |
For figures
& image – click here
References
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour
49: 227–265. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00534
Arcese, P., G. Jongejean, and
A.R.E. Sinclair (1995). Behavioural
flexibility in a small African antelope: Group size and composition in the
Oribi (Ourebia ourebi, Bovidae). Ethology 99: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1995.tb01085
Barucha, E. & K. Asher (1993). Behaviour patterns of the Blackbuck, Antilope
cervicapra, under sub-optimal habitat condition. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 90(3): 371–393.
Baskaran, N., K. Ramkumaran &
G. Karthikeyan (2016). Spatial and
dietary overlap between Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) and feral horse
(Equus caballus) at Point Calimere Wildlife Sanctuary, southern India:
competition between native versus introduced species. Mammalian Biology
81(3): 295–302. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2016.02.004
Bhatta, S.R. (2008). People and blackbuck: current management challenges
and opportunities. The Initiation 2(1): 17–21. https://doi.org/10.3126/init.v2i1.2514
Brashares, J.S. & P. Arcese
(2002). Role of forage, habitat and
predation in the behavioural plasticity of a small African antelope. Journal
of Animal Ecology 71: 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00633.x
Caughly, G. (1977). Analysis of Vertebrate Populations. John Wiley
& Sons, London, 234pp.
Chapman, C.A., R.W. Wrangham,
& L.J. Chapman (1995). Ecological
constraints on group–size: an analysis of spider monkey and chimpanzee
subgroups. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36: 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175729
Chopra, G.C. & D. Rai (2010). Ecological studies on population structure and food
habits of Nilgai, Boselaphus tragocamelus Pallas (Artiodactyla, Bovidae)
in Saraswati Plantation Wildlife Sanctuary, Haryana (India). Journal of
Experimental Zoology (India) 13(1): 43–49.
Debata, S. (2017). Population size, herd structure and sex ratio of the
Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra (Mammalia: Cetartiodactyla: Bovidae) in a
human dominated area in Odisha, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(11):
10953–10955. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2658.9.11.10953-10955
Dookia, S., S.K. Das , S.S. Poonia,
G. Gupta, Rajlakshmi & K. Das (2011). Taal Chhapar Blackbuck Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India: a
threatened ecosystem, pp70-77. In: Proceedings of the National Seminar on the
Natural Resource Management and Environmental Issues, GLPG, College, Churu, Rajasthan,
170pp.
Gangotri, V.M. & M.S. Gangotri
(2014). Time-budget of different
life-history stages of the Blackbuck, Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus),
pp71–77. In: Advances in Biotechnology and Patenting. Elsevier Publication, New
Delhi,339pp.
Gehlot, H.S. & G.R. Jakher
(2007). Distribution, status and
conservation of Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra in Thar Desert of
Rajasthan (India). Tigerpaper 34(4): 19–23.
Gehlot, H.S. & G.R. Jakher
(2011). Habitat selection patterns of
Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra and Chinkara Gazella bennetti in
Thar Desert of Rajasthan (India). Tigerpaper 38(3): 17–23.
Gupta, R.C. & C.S. Bhardwaj
(1990). Seasonal changes in the herd
structure and composition of Indian Blackbuck Antelope cervicapra at
Pipli Deer Park in Kurukshetra District of Haryana State. Journal of
Environmental Biology 11: 313–319.
Hamilton, W.D. (1971). Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of
Theoretical Biology 31: 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(71)90189-5
Isvaran, K. (2007). Intraspecific variation in group size in the
Blackbuck antelope: the roles of habitat structure and forage at different
spatial scales. Oecologia 154: 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0840-x
IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group
(2017). Antilope cervicapra. The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T1681A50181949. Downloaded on
13.11.2018. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-2.RLTS.T1681A50181949.en
Jarman, P. (1974). The social organization of antelopes in relation to
their ecology. Behaviour 58: 215–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00345
Jarman, P.J. (1982). Prospects for interspecific comparison in
sociobiology, pp323–342. In: King’s College Sociobiology Group (eds).
Current Problems in Sociobiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
395pp.
Jhala, Y.V. (1992). Water in the Ecophysiology of Blackbuck. Journal
of the Arid Environments 22: 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(18)30644-X
Khanal, L. & M.K. Chalise
(2010). Population status of Blackbuck (Antilope
cervicapra) at Khairapur, Bardiya, Nepal. Journal of Natural History
Museum 25: 266–275.
Kumar, S. & A.S. Rahmani
(2008). Predation by Wolves (Canis
lupuspallipes) on Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) in the Great
Indian Bustard Sanctuary, Nannaj, Maharashtra, India. International Journal
of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 34(2): 99–112.
Lagory, K.E. (1986). Habitat, group size and the behaviour of white-tailed
deer. Behaviour 98: 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853986X00955
Leuthold, W. (1970). Observations on the social organization of Impala Aepyceros
nlelampus. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 27: 693–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1970.tb01896.x
Lott, D.F. (1991). Intraspecific Variation in the Social Systems of
Wild Vertebrates. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 245pp.
Mahato, A.K.R., Ramakrishnan &
M. Raziuddin (2010). Status,
Ecology & Behaviour of Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus, 1758) in Proposed
Community Reserve for Blackbuck, Ganjam District, Orissa, India. Zoological
Survey of India, Kolkata, 160pp.
Mallon, D.P. (2008). Antilope
cervicapra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T1681A6448761.
Downloaded on 09.11.2016. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T1681A6448761.en
Meena, R. & V. Chourasia
(2018). Influence of Anthropogenic
Activities on Blackbuck Population at Sorsan Region of Baran District,
Rajasthan, pp553–559. In: 13th International Conference on Recent
Trends in Engineering Science and Management. Vedant College of Engineering and
Technology, Tulsi, Rajasthan, 559pp.
Mungall, E.C. (1978). The Indian blackbuck antelope: A Texas View. Klebreg
Studies in Natural Resources. The Texas Aligarh and Muslim University, India,
184pp.
Nair, S.S. (1976). A population survey and observation on the behaviour
of the Blackbuck in the Point Calimere Sanctuary. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 73(2): 304–310.
Prasad, N.L.N.S. (1983). Seasonal changes in the herd structure of Blackbuck. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 80: 549–554.
Prashanth, M.B., A. Saravanan, M.
Mathivanan & T. Ganesh (2016).
Conservation of a fragmented population of Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra.
Current Science 3(3): 543–549.
Prater, S.H. (1971). The Book of Indian Animal. Bombay Natural
History Society, Bombay, 348pp.
Rai, D. & Jyoti (2018). Status and ecological aspects of Blackbuck, Antilope
cervicapra (Linnaeus, 1758) through opinion surveys in and around Hisar,
Haryana (India). Journal of Experimental Zoology (India) 21(2):
1195–1201.
Ramesh, T., K. Sankar, B. Qureshi
& R. Kalle (2012a). Group size,
sex and age composition of Chital (Axis axis) and Sambar (Rusa
unicolor) in a deciduous habitat of Western Ghats. Mammalian Biology
77: 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2011.09.003
Ramesh, T., K. Sankar, B. Qureshi,
& R. Kalle (2012b). Group size
and population structure of megaherbivores (Gaur Bos gaurus and Asian
Elephant Elephas maximus) in a deciduous habitat of Western Ghats,
India. Mammal Study 37: 47–54. https://doi.org/10.3106/041.037.0106
Ranjitsinh, M.K. (1982). Territorial behaviour of Indian Blackbuck Antilope
cervicapra (Linneaus, 1758) in the Velevadar National Park, Gujarat. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 79(2): 241–246.
Ranjitsinh, M.K. (1989). The Indian Blackbuck. Natraj Publishers,
Dehradun, 155pp.
Reiczigel, J. & L. Rozsa
(2006). Flocker 1.0. Available at
http://www.behav.org/flocker/. Accessed
on 20.09.2018.
Reiczigel, J., Z. Lang, L. Rozsa
& B. Tothmeresz (2005). Properties
of crowding indices and statistical tools to analyze crowding data. Journal
of Parasitology 91: 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1645/GE-281R1
Reiczigel, J., Z. Lang, L. Rozsa
& B. Tothmeresz (2008). Measures of
sociality: two different views of group size. Animal Behaviour 75:
715–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.05.020
Sagar, H.S.S.C. & P.U. Antoney
2017. Measuring Indian Blackbuck Antilope
cervicapra (Mammalia: Cetartiodactyla: Bovidae) abundance at Basur Amruth
Mahal Kaval Conservation Reserve, Chikkamagaluru, southern India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 9(7): 10468–10472.https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2971.9.7.10468-10472
Schaller, G.B. (1967). The Deer and The Tiger. Chicago University
Press, Chicago, USA, 384pp.
Sharma, A.K. & S. Sharma
(2013). Daily Activity Pattern of
Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra Linn. of Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary,
Rajasthan and its Seasonal Variation. Asian Resonance 2(3): 38–43.
Spillet, J. (1966). A report on wildlife surveys in south and west India.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 65: 296–325.
Stearns, S.C. (1992). The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 249pp.
Vats, R. & C.S. Bhardwaj
(2009a). Investigation in activity time
budget and social organization of Indian Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra
Linn. (Mammalia Artiodactyla) at M.C. Zoological Park, Chhatbir (Pb.), India. Current
World Environment 4(1): 97–102. https://doi.org/10.12944/CWE.4.1.13
Vats, R. & C.S. Bhardwaj
(2009b). A Study of Reproductive Behaviour
of Indian Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra Linn. with Reference to
Courtship, Breeding, Fawning and Colouration. Current World Environment
4(1): 121–125. http://doi.org/10.12944/CWE.4.1.18
Wirtz, P. & J. Lorscher
(1983). Group sizes of antelopes in an
East African national park. Behaviour 84: 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853983X00327