Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 July 2020 | 12(10): 16230–16238
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5754.12.10.16230-16238
#5754 | Received 03 February 2020 | Final
received 04 July 2020 | Finally accepted 10 July 2020
Negative human-wildlife
interactions in traditional agroforestry systems in Assam, India
Yashmita-Ulman 1, Manoj Singh
2, Awadhesh Kumar 3 & Madhubala
Sharma 4
1 Department of Silviculture and
Agroforestry, College of Horticulture & Forestry, Acharya Narendra Deva
University of Agriculture and Technology, Ayodhya,
Uttar Pradesh 224229, India.
2 Department of Zoology, Kalinga
University, Near Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492101, India.
3,4 Department of Forestry, North
Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli,
Arunachal Pradesh 790109, India.
1 yashmita2018@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 msingh.zooku@gmail.com,
3 tpileatus@gmail.com,
4 mbs_madhu@yahoo.co.in
Editor: Mewa Singh, University of Mysore,
Mysuru, India. Date of publication: 26 July
2020 (online & print)
Citation: Yashmita-Ulman,
M. Singh, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2020). Negative human-wildlife interactions in traditional agroforestry systems
in Assam, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(10): 16230–16238. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5754.12.10.16230-16238
Copyright: © Yashmita-Ulman
et al. 2020. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: CSIR, New Delhi funded
the project titled “Studies
on Contribution of Agroforestry
Systems in Wildlife and Biodiversity
Conservation in Northeast
India”, Sanction No. 37(1585)/13/EMR-II.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr. Yashmita-Ulman, works as Assistant Professor in Department of
Silviculture & Agroforestry, ANDUAT, Ayodhya, on
agroforestry systems. Her research
interests include plant-animal interactions, forest ecology and wildlife
conservation. Dr. Manoj
Singh works as Assistant Professor in Department of Zoology, Kalinga
University, Chhattisgarh. He is working on bird acoustics and wildlife
conservation using GIS. Dr. Awadhesh Kumar works
as an Associate Professor in Department of Forestry, NERIST
(Deemed-to-be-University), Nirjuli, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. He works on population and beahvioural ecology of threatened mammalian species and
other wildlife of northeast India. His interest lies in ecological process
related to wildlife conservation and forest management under the umbrella of
forestry research. Professor (Mrs.) Madhubala Sharma also works in the Department of
Forestry, NERIST (Deemed-to-be-University), Arunachal Pradesh. She is
specialized in the field of wood science & technology and non-timber forest
products.
Author contribution: Y-U did the fieldwork and wrote
the article. MS helped with the data compilation and analysis. AK and MS edited
and finalized the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We are extremely grateful to all
the owners of the agroforestry systems, viz. home gardens, agrisilviculture
and tea garden for permitting to carry out the present study as well as for
sharing valuable information about presence of wildlife and human-wildlife
interactions. Authors are thankful to
Director and Head of Department, Forestry for their administrative support and
to CSIR, New Delhi for providing financial support.
Abstract: Traditional agroforestry systems
are designed to provide maximum and diverse yield (ranging from agricultural
crops, forest trees, livestock and fish) to people. They also act as sources of food and shelter
to wild animals leading to crop destruction, livestock depredation and injuries
to people giving rise to negative human-wildlife interactions. The present study was carried out in three
different agroforestry systems namely tea gardens, homegardens,
and agrisilvicultural systems in Assam to document
the attitude of people towards wild animals which damage the crops and
livestock, through questionnaire surveys.
In agroforestry systems, 13 animals were reported as destructive;
rodents at 13% followed by Indian Hare at 12%.
The least destructive were birds and bats with 4% each. In tea gardens majority of the people killed
animals for meat (95%) and the most common method for killing was the use of
catapults (77%). In homegardens
and agrisilvicultural systems, owners chased the
animals away (82%) by using catapults (68%).
Hunting of animals and intolerance of people towards crop destruction
and livestock depredation done by wild animals were the two main reasons
causing negative human-wildlife interactions in agroforestry systems. The present study concludes that wildlife
species found in the agroforestry system in Assam were threatened by local
inhabitants and thus, a suitable conservation awareness and policy action plan
should be developed in consultation with the owners of agroforestry systems by
considering the ecological significance of the wildlife species found therein.
Keywords: Agrisilvicultural
systems, agroforestry systems, crop destruction, destructive wildlife species, homegardens, tea gardens.
INTRODUCTION
Agroforestry
system is a traditional cultivation practice carried out in Assam, a northeastern state of India (Yashmita-Ulman
et al. 2018). This system includes
growing of agricultural crops along with trees.
Agroforestry systems are also frequently used by wild animals either as
food resources (Lees & Peres 2008; Lenz et al. 2011; Mueller et al. 2014)
or for shelter or as a corridor (Kumar et al. 2004; Yashmita-Ulman
et al. 2020). As these systems are close to human habitations and mainly
human-centric as a product of centuries, decades or years of destruction of
natural forests or wilderness areas, they are prone to negative human-wildlife
interactions, usually inappropriately called ‘conflicts’. The two main threats
to wildlife in agroforestry systems are: (i) killing
of animals as revenge for crop damage or livestock depredation and (ii) hunting
for subsistence or as a part of culture and tradition or for trade. Conover & Chasko
(1985) found that 89% of farmers in Kansas, USA, were of an opinion that wildlife
caused damage in the farms. There are
many such reports on crop predation. Elephants are known to be the most
destructive wild animals (Shrivastava 2002).
They feed on ripened paddy, banana, coconut, corn (Nyhus
et al. 2000; Bandara & Tisdell
2002; Santiapillai et al. 2010; Bal et al. 2011; Chartier et al. 2011), maize, millet, sorghum, green gram, soyabean, cowpeas, mustard, beans, green chillies (Bandara & Tisdell 2002),
vegetables (Kumar et al. 2004), and cashew nut (Varma et al. 2008). The macaques feed on maize and wheat (Wang et
al. 2006). In cacao plantations of
Cameroon, squirrels, primates (Chimpanzee, Agile Mangabey,
Moustached Guenon) and Sitatunga Antelopes destroy ripen pods of cacao causing
very serious damage (Arlet & Molleman
2010). They also reported that the cacao
growers either hunted or used passive methods like making noise, guarding, and
using scarecrows to drive away these animals and thus prevent or reduce the
damage caused. So, in most cases, the
wild animals like elephants (Nyhus et al. 2000;
Kushwaha & Hazarika 2004; Santiapillai et al.
2010) and primates (Wadley et al. 1997; Hill 1997) are killed by people in
revenge for crop destruction.
Hunting in northeastern India has both economic and cultural
importance (Aiyadurai 2007; Velho & Laurance 2013).
There are many studies in northeastern India
which suggest that hunting is a serious threat to many wild species (Pawar & Birand 2001; Datta 2002; Mishra et al. 2006). Hunting has a more negative effect on the
abundance and diversity of mammals than the vegetation disturbance
(Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; Datta et al.
2008). Naughton-Treves et al. (2003) in
Tambopata, Peru observed that the farmers living near forests experienced crop
raiding and livestock losses and to offset these losses, they resorted to
hunting. So, all these are some of the
threats that wild animals face in most agroforestry systems which might
otherwise act as a second home or refuge for wild animals. This study is designed to identify the
reasons for negative human-animal interactions in agroforestry systems and the
methods used for killing these wild animals.
Questionnaire surveys were conducted to 1) document the factors
responsible for such human-wildlife interactions (types of crops destroyed or
livestock killed, attitudes of people and their response in form of tolerance
or retaliation by killing), 2) identify the most destructive wild animal in
different agroforestry systems, and 3) document the methods used to kill, chase
or avoid wild animals in different agroforestry systems.
STUDY AREA
Two
districts of Lakhimpur and Sonitpur (undivided)
located on the north bank landscape of Bramhaputra
River were selected for the documentation of human-wildlife interactions in
agroforestry systems in Assam (Fig. 1). Homegardens and agrisilvicultural
systems were chosen from both the districts while the tea gardens were chosen
only from Sonitpur District. Lakhimpur district is situated approximately
between 26.800–27.883 0N & 93.700–94.333 0E. Sonitpur lies between 26.500–27.167 0N &
92.267–93.717 0E covering an area of around 5,324km2. Tea garden tribes, Mishing,
Bodos, Assamese, Nepalis, and Bengalis are some of
the predominant ethnic groups living in the study area (Namsa
et al. 2011).
METHOD
A
questionnaire survey was conducted from September 2016 to February 2017 in the
selected study areas. A total of 148
respondents, which included 54 agrisilvicultural
system owners, 54 homegarden owners and 40 tea
gardens labourers were interviewed. All
these 148 respondents interviewed were the ones who worked in these
agroforestry fields (homegarden and agrisilvicultural system owners themselves worked in their
respective lands but in tea gardens, labourers were employed and therefore, tea
garden labourers were interviewed and not the tea garden owners). All the respondents were well aware of the
wild animals causing destruction and the type of destruction caused. Information was collected on the wildlife
species sighted, crops destroyed by wildlife species in the agroforestry system
and the preventive measures adopted to control the loss. They were questioned over the prevalent
techniques used for hunting and killing of wild animals (Mishra et al. 2006). Any wild animal product like skin, bone,
trophy, and hunting tools kept in their houses were photographed for
identification and confirmation of threat.
To find out the most destructive animal for the crops and livestock in
agroforestry systems as per owners’/labourers’ opinion, the method used by Ahire & Kumar (2006) was followed. In this method, the owners were asked to give
a score (1–13) to each animal they viewed as destructive for their crops and
livestock in their agroforestry system.
The most destructive animal had the highest score and the rest of the
animals got the score in descending order.
RESULTS
The major
destruction done by wild animals inhabiting the agroforestry systems was crop
damage. The details of the crops
destroyed by the various wildlife species in the different agroforestry systems
are presented in Table 1. In all the
three agroforestry systems combined, 13 animals were reported as destructive
for the crops and livestock present in the agroforestry systems (Fig. 2). The most destructive wildlife species were
rodents (13%) followed by Indian Hare Lepus nigricollis
(12%) (Fig. 2). The least
destructive were birds and bats (4% each) (Fig. 2).
Homegardens recorded the highest number of destructive
animals (13) (Fig. 3), followed by agrisilvicultural
systems (8) (Fig. 4) and the lowest was found in tea gardens (7) (Fig. 5). Out of the 13 animals viewed as destructive
in homegardens, Hoary-bellied Himalayan Squirrel Callosciurus pygerythrus
(15%) was reported to be the most destructive followed by Indian Grey Mongoose Herpestes edwardsii (13%) (Fig. 3). The least destructive was Indian porcupine Hystrix indica (2%)
(Fig. 3). Among the eight wildlife
species recorded as destructive in agrisilvicultural
systems, the most destructive animal was rodent (29%) followed by birds (23%)
and the least destructive was Indian Porcupine (6%) (Fig. 4). Out of the seven destructive wildlife species
reported in tea gardens, Asian Elephant Elephas maximus (24%)
followed by Wild Boar Sus scrofa (19%) were
the most destructive animals in tea gardens (Fig. 5). The least destructive was the Rhesus Macaque Macaca mulatta (5%)
(Fig. 5).
In all the
three agroforestry systems as a whole, majority (59%) chased the wild animals
away followed by killing of the animals (37%) and the least tolerated the
presence of wildlife in their agroforestry systems (4%) (Fig. 6). Among the chasing techniques, the most common
was use of catapults (49%) followed by use of scarecrow (7%) and the least
common was the use of drums and noise to chase the animals away (3%) (Fig.
7). The most frequently used killing
methods was the use of catapults (28%) followed by leg traps, bows and arrows
(3% each) and the least used methods were sticks, air rifles and poison (1%
each) (Fig. 7). About 4% respondents
chose to ignore the presence of wildlife in their agroforestry systems (Fig.
7). It was observed that 82% of the
respondents in both homegardens and agrisilvcultural systems chased the animals away, 13%
killed the animals for meat as well as a kind of retaliation for livestock
depredation and the remaining 5% ignored the menace caused by wildlife (Fig.
6). The highest number of respondents
(68%) used catapults to chase the animals, 10% made use of scare crows, 8%
killed the animals with catapult, 5% ignored the presence of animals, 4% used
drums or other forms of noise to scare away the animals, 3% used leg traps, and
2% used poison to kill the animals (Fig. 7).
The trend was different in tea gardens.
It was observed that in the tea gardens, majority of the respondents
(95%) killed the animals for meat, 3% chased the animal away and 2% chose to
ignore the presence of the animal (Fig. 6).
Among the various methods used to kill the animals the most common was
the use of catapults (77%) followed by use of bows and arrow (9%) and leg traps
(5%) (Fig. 7). The least used method was
use of stick and air rifles (2%) each (Fig. 7).
The pictographic representation of the animals killed by the
agroforestry system owners and the methods used by them are shown in Plate 1
& 2.
DISCUSSION
In the current study, animals like elephants, wild pigs, porcupine,
hare, rodents, rhesus macaque, jungle cats, birds and bats were reported as
destructive animals in agroforestry systems.
Squirrel was recorded as top most destructive animal in homegardens and rodents in agrisilvicultural
systems. The squirrels were notorious
for damaging the cash crop yields of Areca nut Areca catechu, Coconut
Cocos nucifera, Pepper vines Piper spp., etc. The rodents and birds were known to destroy
paddy crops, bamboo seeds, etc. and the bats were observed feeding on the
fruits of Lychee Litchi chinensis, Wax Jambu Syzygium samarangense. Yashmita-Ulman et al. (2017) observed flocks of Baya Weaver Ploceus philippinus feeding on mature paddy grains in
agroforestry systems. Similar
observations of crop depredation by rabbits (Conover 1994) and by birds
(Gillingham & Lee 2003; Naughton-Treves & Treves 2005) have been
reported. Some other small mammals like
mongoose and Small Indian Civet were also reported to be destructive in the homegardens of the current study area. These were reported to depredate upon the
livestock (hens, ducks, pigeons, and goats) reared by the homegarden
owners. Similar results were obtained by
Weladji & Tchamba
(2003).
In the current study, animals like elephants, wild pigs, porcupine,
rabbits, rodents and rhesus macaques were recorded to destroy the young tea
seedlings and uproot the shade trees in tea gardens. Similarly, elephants are reported to damage
the coffee bushes, fruit trees and associated pepper vines (Bal et al. 2011)
and roots of shade tree Indian Coral Tree Erythrina mysorensis
in coffee agroforests of southern India (Kumar et al. 2004). The Wild Boars and porcupines are reported to
dig the root systems of tea plants causing damage to the tea gardens (Kumara et al. 2004) in the Western Ghats of India.
Conover & Chasko (1985) in Kansas,
USA observed that 56% of the farmers reported that the losses incurred due to
wildlife were higher than they were willing to tolerate. Similar results were found in the present
study where it was observed that in the tea gardens, 95% of the respondents
killed the animals for meat and 13% of the respondents in homegardens
killed wildlife in retaliation and for meat.
Only 2% respondents in tea gardens and 5% in homegardens
choose to ignore or tolerate the presence of the wild animals. Killing small carnivores in retaliation for
depredation of livestock is similar to other studies by Datta
et al. (2008) and Lyngdoh et al. (2011). All these factors may explain such high rate
of killing of wildlife in the current study area.
In the
present study, methods like making sounds through clapper and drum, using
catapults, scarecrows were usually employed by the local people to chase the
wild animals away from their agroforestry systems. Similar methods were also used to control wildlife
damage in Bhutan (Wang et al. 2006), Indonesia (Marchal
& Hill 2009) and Rajasthan (Chhangani et al.
2010). The homegarden
and agrisilvicultural system owners belong to the Kalita caste who usually neither indulge in hunting nor is
it a part of their tradition. As a
result, these people either tolerated the animals or tried to deter the
wildlife species present in the agroforestry systems to protect their
crops. Only very few killed the wild
animals in doing so. Whereas, the
labourers in tea gardens are tribes and indulge in hunting as a part of their
culture and food habits. The tea tribes
used primitive hunting techniques like catapults, bows & arrows and leg
traps to hunt the animals for bush meat.
Similar hunting techniques were observed in Arunachal Pradesh (Aiyadurai 2011) and the Western Ghats (Gubbi & Linkie 2012).
CONCLUSION
The main
cause of negative human-wildlife interactions is the lower rate of tolerance of
humans to crop and livestock depredation by wild animals in the agroforestry
systems of Assam. Another major factor
which contributes to killing of wild animals is the practice and tradition of
people. The fact that majority of the
people in tea gardens resorted to hunting of wild animals primarily for
subsistence or as a tradition and also killed them as a revenge for livestock
depredation and crop destruction is a matter of concern. But the brighter side is that the homegarden and agrisilvicultural
system owners prefer to chase the animals using catapults which shows positive
signs for their conservation.
Understanding people’s attitude towards wild animals in their
agroforestry systems helps to develop wildlife conservation strategies in
agroforestry systems which otherwise provides refuge to wild animals in the
current scenario of deforestation and habitat loss.
Table 1.
Record of wildlife species for crop destruction in selected agroforestry
systems.
|
|
Name of animal |
Crops destroyed/other problems |
||
|
ASS |
HG |
TG |
||
|
1. |
Elephas maximus (Asian Elephant) |
Oryza sativa (Rice), Zea mays (Maize), Bambusa
spp. (Bamboo) |
Musa spp. (Banana), Bambusa spp.
(Bamboo), Areca catechu (Areca nut), Cucurbita moschata (Squash), Cocos nucifera (Coconut) |
Uprooted shade trees and Camellia sinensis
(Tea) plants |
|
2. |
Macaca mulatta (Rhesus Macaque) |
Oryza sativa (Rice), Mangifera
indica (Mango), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit) |
Oryza sativa (Rice), Vigna unguiculata
(Cowpea), Vigna mungo (Black gram), Moringa olerifera
(Drumstick), Areca catechu (Areca nut), Mangifera
indica (Mango), Artocarpus
heterophyllus (Jackfruit), Carica papaya (Papaya), Citrus spp., Musa spp.
(Banana), Psidium gujava (Guava),
Piper spp. (Pepper), Luffa cylindrical (Sponge gourd),
Luffa acutangula (Ridge gourd), Cucurbita moschata (Squash), Lagenaria
siceraria (Bottle gourd), Abelmoschus
esculentus (Okra), Daucus carota (Carrot), Allium cepa
(Onion), Pisum sativum (Peas),
Phaseolus lunatus (Lima bean), Saccharum officinarum (Sugarcane),
Solanum tuberosum (Potato), Ananas comosus (Pineapple) |
|
|
3. |
Sus scrofa (Wild Boar) |
Oryza sativa (Rice) |
Oryza sativa (Rice), Vigna unguiculata
(Cowpea), Vigna mungo (Black gram), Solanum tuberosum (Potato),
Manihot esculenta (Cassava), Daucus carota (Carrot), Allium cepa
(Onion), Ananas comosus
(Pineapple) |
Uprooted shade trees and Camellia sinensis
(Tea) seedlings |
|
4. |
Herpestes edwardsii (Indian Grey Mongoose) |
|
Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp. (Duck), Columba livia domestica (Pigeon)
and fish |
|
|
5. |
Felis chaus (Jungle Cat) |
|
Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp. (Duck), Columba livia domestica (Pigeon) and fish |
|
|
6. |
Callosciurus pygerythrus (Hoary-bellied Himalayan Squirrel) |
Oryza sativa (Rice), Mangifera
indica (Mango), Artocarpus
heterophyllus (Jackfruit), Syzygium cumini (Jamun) |
Cocos nucifera (Coconut), Musa spp. (Banana), Citrus grandis (Pomelo), Carica
papaya (Papaya), Citrus reticulata (Madarin
orange), Pyrus communis (Pear), Syzygium cumini (Jamun), Terminalia
chebula (Myrobalan), Elaeocarpus
floribundus (Indian olive), Phaseolus lunatus (Lima bean), Luffa acutangula
(Ridge gourd), Trichosanthes anguina (Snake gourd), Cucurbita moschata (Squash),
Cucumis sativus (Cucumber) |
|
|
7. |
Viverricula indica (Small Indian Civet) |
|
Musa spp. (Banana), Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp. (Duck),
Columba livia domestica
(Pigeon) |
|
|
8. |
Vulpes bengalensis (Indian Fox) |
|
Capra spp. (Goat), Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp. (Duck) |
|
|
9. |
Rodents |
Oryza sativa (Rice) |
Oryza sativa (Rice), Vigna unguiculata
(Cowpea), Vigna mungo (Black gram), Solanum tuberosum (Potato),
Manihot esculenta (Cassava), Daucus carota (Carrot), Allium cepa
(Onion), Ananas comosus
(Pineapple), Cucurbita moschata (Squash),
Lagenaria siceraria
(Bottle gourd) |
Cuts shade trees and Camellia sinensis
(Tea) plants roots |
|
10. |
Lepus nigricollis (Indian Hare) |
Oryza sativa (Rice) |
Musa spp. (Banana), Brassica juncea (Mustard),
Brassica oleracea (Cabbage), Abelmoschus esculentus (Okra), Solanum tuberosum (Potato),
Cucurbita moschata (Squash), Lagenaria siceraria (Bottle
gourd), Pisum sativum (Peas), Raphanus sativus (Raddish),
Spinacia oleracea (Spinach), Solanum lycopersicum (Tomato), Daucus carota
(Carrot) |
Uprooted shade trees and Camellia sinensis
(Tea) plants seedlings |
|
11. |
Hystrix indica (Indian Porcupine) |
Oryza sativa (Rice) |
Solanum tuberosum (Potato), Alocasia spp. |
Uprooted shade trees and Camellia sinensis
(Tea) plants seedlings |
|
12. |
Bat |
Syzygium samarangense (Wax Jambu), Mangifera indica (Mango),
Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit) |
Mangifera indica (Mango), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit), Citrus spp.,
Musa spp. (Banana), Litchi chinensis (Lychee),
Psidium gujava (Guava), Syzygium
samarangense (Wax Jambu) |
|
|
13. |
Varanus bengalensis (Bengal Monitor) |
|
Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, Anas spp. |
|
|
14. |
Birds |
Oryza sativa (Rice),Terminalia chebula
(Myrobalan), Syzygium samarangense (Wax Jambu),
Mangifera indica (Mango),
Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit) |
Oryza sativa (Rice), Vigna unguiculata
(Cowpea), Vigna mungo (Black gram), Terminalia chebula (Myrobalan), Musa spp. (Banana),
Psidium gujava (Guava), Averrhoa
carambola (Star fruit), Phaseolus lunatus (Lima
bean), Capsicum spp., Fish |
|
|
15. |
Snakes |
|
Gallus gallus domesticus (Chicken) eggs, fish |
- |
ASS=Agrisilvicultural
system, HG=Homegarden, TG=Tea garden.
For
figures & images - - click here
REFERENCES
Ahire, M. &
B. Kumar (2006). Training needs of rural girls. The Allahabad Farmer 11: 28–33.
Aiyadurai, A.
(2007). Pheasant hunting: a cultural practice in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast
India. The International Newsletter of the World Pheasant Association
79: 6–7.
Aiyadurai, A.
(2011). Wildlife hunting and conservation in Northeast India: a need for an
interdisciplinary understanding. International Journal of Galliformes Conservation 2: 61–73.
Arlet, M.E.
& F. Molleman (2010). Farmer’s
perceptions of the impact of wildlife on small-scale cacao cultivation at the
northern periphery of Dja Faunal Reserve, Cameroon. African
Primates 7(1): 27–34.
Bal, P., C.D. Nath, K.M. Nanaya, C.G. Kushalappa & C. Garcia (2011). Erratum
to: Elephants also like coffee: Trends and drivers of human-elephant conflicts
in coffee agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu, Western Ghats, India. Environmental
Management 48: 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9718-0
Bandara, R. &
C. Tisdell (2002). Asian
elephants as agricultural pests: economics of control and compensation in Sri
Lanka. Natural Resources Journal 42: 491–519.
Chartier, L., A.
Zimmermann & R.J. Ladle (2011). Habitat
loss and human-elephant conflict in Assam, India: does a critical threshold
exist? Oryx 45(4): 528–533. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605311000044
Chhangani, A.K., P.
Robbins & S.M. Mahnot (2010). Major
threats to the faunal diversity of Kumhalgarh
Wildlife Sanctuary in the Aravalli hills of Rajasthan. Indian Forester
136(10): 1410–1421.
Conover, M.R. (1994). Perceptions of grass-roots leaders of the
agricultural community about wildlife damage on their farms and ranches. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 22(1): 94–100.
Conover, M.R. & G.G. Chasko (1985). Nuisance
Canada Goose Problems in the Eastern Unites States. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 13(3): 228–233.
Datta, A.
(2002). Status of hornbills and hunting among tribal communities in eastern
Arunachal Pradesh. Unpublished report. Wildlife Conservation Society and
WCS-India Program, Bangalore, India, 72pp.
Datta, A., R. Naniwadekar & M.O. Anand (2008). Occurrence
and conservation status of small carnivores in two protected areas in Arunachal
Pradesh. Small Carnivore Conservation 39: 1–10.
Gillingham, S. & P.C. Lee (2003). People and
protected areas: a study of local perceptions of wildlife crop-damage conflict
in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oryx 37(3):
316–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000577
Gubbi, S. & M. Linkie (2012). Wildlife
hunting patterns, techniques, and profile of hunters in and around Periyar Tiger Reserve. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 109(3): 165–172.
Hill, C.M. (1997). Crop-raiding
by wild vertebrates: the farmer’s perspective in an agricultural community in
western Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management 43(1): 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/096708797229022
Kumar, M.A., D. Mudappa, T.R.S. Raman &
M.D. Madhusudan (2004). The elephant hills: Conservation of wild Asian
elephants in a landscape of fragmented rainforests and plantations in the Anaimalais, India. CERC Technical Report No. 10, Nature
Conservation Foundation, Mysore, Karnataka, India. pp. 98.
Kumara, H.N.,
A.M. Kumar, A.K. Sharma, H.S. Sushma, M. Singh & M. Singh (2004). Diversity
and management of wild mammals in tea gardens in the rain-forest regions of the
Western Ghats, India: a case study from a tea estate in the Anaimalai
hills. Current Science 87: 1282–1287.
Kushwaha, S.P.S. & R. Hazarika (2004). Assessment
of habitat loss in Kameng and Sonitpur
Elephant Reserves. Current Science 87: 1447–1453.
Lees, A.C. & C.A. Peres (2008). Avian
life-history determinants of local extinction risk in a hyper-fragmented
neotropical fragmented landscape. Animal Conservation 11: 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00162.x
Lenz, J., W. Fiedler, T. Caprano, W.
Friedrichs, B.H. Gaese, M. Wikelski
& K. Bohning-Gaese (2011).
Seed-dispersal distributions by trumpeter hornbills in fragmented landscapes. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278: 2257–2264. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2383
Lyngdoh, S., G.V.
Gopi & B. Habib (2011). Hunting record of a Spotted Linsang Prionodon pardicolor from Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Small
Carnivore Conservation 44: 27–28.
Marchal, V. &
C. Hill (2009). Primate crop-raiding: a study of local perceptions in four villages in North
Sumatra, Indonesia. Primate Conservation 24: 107–116.
Mishra, C., M.D. Madhusudan & A. Datta
(2006). Mammals of the high altitudes of western Arunachal Pradesh, eastern
Himalaya: an assessment of threats and conservation needs. Oryx 40(1):
1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605306000032
Mueller, T., J. Lenz, T. Caprano, W. Fiedler
& K. Bohning-Gaese (2014). Large
frugivorous birds facilitate functional connectivity of fragmented landscapes. Journal
of Applied Ecology 51: 684–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12247
Namsa, N.D., M.
Mandal & S. Tangjang (2011).
Anti-malarial herbal remedies of northeast India, Assam: An ethnobotanical
survey. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 133: 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2010.10.036
Naughton-Treves, L. & A. Treves (2005).
Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding by
elephants and other wildlife in Africa. In: Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.). People and
Wildlife: Conflict or co-existence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 497pp.
Naughton-Treves, L., J.L. Mena, A. Treves, N. Alvarez & V.C. Radeloff (2003). Wildlife
survival beyond park boundaries: the impact of slash-and-burn agriculture and
hunting on mammals in Tambopata, Peru. Conservation Biology 17(4):
1106–1117.
Nyhus, P.J., R.
Tilson & Sumianto (2000). Crop-raiding
elephants and conservation implications at Way Kambas
National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx 34(4): 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00132.x
Pawar, S. &
A. Birand (2001). A survey
of amphibians, reptiles, and birds in Northeast India. In. Centre for
Ecological Research and Conservation, Mysore, India, 118pp.
Santiapillai, C., S. Wijeyamohan, G. Bandara, R. Athurupana, N. Dissanayake & B. Read (2010). An
assessment of the human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of
Biological Science 39(1): 21–33. http://doi.org/10.4038/cjsbs.v39i1.2350
Shrivastava, R.J. (2002). Natural resource use and
park-people relations at Kaziranga National Park and
world heritage site, India. M.Sc. Thesis, Florida International University,
Miami, USA, 193pp.
Varma, S., N.X. Dang, T.V. Thanh & R. Sukumar (2008). The
elephants Elephas maximus of Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam: status and
conservation of a vanishing population. Oryx 42(1): 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605308010090
Velho, N. & W.F. Laurance (2013). Hunting
practices of an Indo-Tibetian buddhist
tribe in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. Oryx 47(3): 389–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000252
Wadley, R.L., C.J.P. Colfer & I.G. Hood
(1997). Hunting primates and managing forests: the case of Iban forest farmers
in Indonesian Borneo. Human Ecology 25(2): 243–271. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021926206649
Wang, S.W., P.D. Curtis & J.P. Lassoie
(2006). Farmer perceptions of crop damage by wildlife in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park,
Bhutan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(2): 359–365. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[359:FPOCDB]2.0.CO;2
Weladji, R.B.
& N.M. Tchamba (2003). Conflict
between people and protected areas within the Bénoué
Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Oryx 37(1): 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000140
Yashmita-Ulman, A.
Kumar & M. Sharma (2017). Traditional homegarden
agroforestry systems: habitat for conservation of Baya
Weaver Ploceus philippinus
(Passeriformes: Ploceidae) in Assam, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 9(4): 10076–10083. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3090.9.4.10076-10083
Yashmita-Ulman, M.
Sharma & A. Kumar (2018). Agroforestry systems as habitat for avian
species: Assessing its role in conservation. Proceedings of Zoological
Society 71: 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-016-0198-3
Yashmita-Ulman, M.
Singh, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2020).
Agroforestry systems: A boon or bane for mammal conservation in northeast
India?. Proceedings of Zoological Society https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-020-00335-5