Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 November 2021 | 13(13): 19937–19947
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7086.13.13.19937-19947
#7086 | Received 14 January 2021 | Final
received 06 July 2021 | Finally accepted 11 November 2021
Seasonal food preferences and
group activity pattern of Blackbuck Antilope
cervicapra (L., 1758) (Mammalia: Cetartiodactyla: Bovidae) in a
semi-arid region of western Haryana, India
Vikram Delu
1, Dharambir Singh 2, Sumit Dookia 3, Priya 4 & Kiran 5
1,2,4,5 Department of Zoology and
Aquaculture, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana
Agricultural University Hisar, Haryana 125004, India.
3 University School of Environment
Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, New Delhi 110078, India.
1 vikramdelu29@hau.ac.in
(corresponding author), 2 dharambir.titu@gmail.com, 3 sumitdookia@gmail.com, 4 priya@hau.ac.in,
5 kiranyodha3@gmail.com
Editor: David Mallon, Manchester
Metropolitan University, UK. Date of
publication: 26 November 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Delu,
V., D. Singh, S. Dookia, Priya
& Kiran (2021). Seasonal food preferences and
group activity pattern of Blackbuck Antilope
cervicapra (L., 1758) (Mammalia: Cetartiodactyla: Bovidae) in a
semi-arid region of western Haryana, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(13): 19937–19947. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7086.13.13.19937-19947
Copyright: © Delu
et al. 2021. 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: None.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Vikram Delu, Priya and Kiran
are pursuing PhD at Department of Zoology & Aquaculture, COBS&H, CCS
HAU Hisar under the supervision of Dr. Dharambir Singh, Asstt.
Professor in Zoology who has specialized in animal behavior, fish nutrition and
ornithology. Dr. Sumit
Dookia, Asstt.
Professor, University School of Environment Management, GGSIP, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi has specialized in wildlife sciences especially mammalian ecology of Thar
Desert.
Author contributions: VD & DS designed the research plan, DS guided the
research. VD collected the field data and wrote draft of the manuscript. DS
& SD analyzed the data and finalize draft of the manuscript. SD added
scientific inputs and also advised during research and writing period. Priya and Kiran helped in data collection and manuscript
writing..
Acknowledgements: VD, DS, and Priya
(authors) are highly thankful for the kind support and financial assistance
provided by the Department of Zoology and Aquaculture, CCS Haryana Agricultural
University Hisar, Haryana. The contribution of forest officials of Fatehabad district, the personal of police department for
the security in habitat has been counted worthy. We are also very grateful to Harikesh Saharan, PhD Scholar, Department of Botany,
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra for helping in identifying the plant
species in the habitat. VD would like to offer his sincere thanks to Dr. Sushma Bisht, senior scientific assistant, HARSAC for
designing the study site map in GIS format. While all authors including SD
would like to extend special thanks to Vinod Karwasra,
the Haryana state president, Akhil Bhartitya Bishnoi Jeev Rakshya
Sabha (ABBJRS) and all local stakeholders around the study site for their
kindly support and guidance during the whole survey period.
Abstract: To evaluate food preferences and
group activity patterns, a fragmented population of Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra
was selected for observation in a semi-arid ecosystem of western Haryana. A
field survey was conducted fortnightly, from dawn to dusk, between September
2019 and August 2020, covering every season. Scan sampling and quadrat methods
were used to record data on group size and vegetation. Group sizes ranged from
3 to 72 individuals. Based on visual observation, blackbuck seasonally consumed
26 species belonging to 25 families with varied preferences, out of a total of
53 plant species documented from the study site. Some plant species with high
medicinal and therapeutic values were preferred, including Artemisia scoparia, Cucumis callous, Ziziphus jujuba, and
Ziziphus nummularia.
Unlike most herbivores, Blackbuck also consumed the toxic and medicinally rich Calotropis procera.
We suggest that zoos which house blackbuck include these preferred wild plant
species in their diet. Observations on group activity were analyzed
on hourly, monthly and seasonal bases, and converted into time percentages.
Group foraging activity was at a maximum in the monsoon (62%) and minimum in
winter (50%), followed by resting: maximum in winter (21%) and minimum (12%) in
monsoon, largely influenced by food availability. Foraging/walking ratio was at
a maximum (5.2) in monsoon and minimum (3.1) in winter, and was correlated with
the number of group sightings (maximum in winter and minimum in monsoon) in
nearby farmland, when the animals faced food scarcity in their natural habitat
and fed on crops.
Keywords: Farmland, foraging activity,
herbivores, medicinal, monsoon, natural habitat, observation, population,
scarcity, vegetation.
INTRODUCTION
The Blackbuck Antilope
cervicapra (Linnaeus, 1758) is endemic to
the Indian subcontinent. The adult male (subspecies rajputanae)
weighs 34 to 45 kg, while females weigh 31 to 39 kg (Ranjitsinh
1989). This antelope shows sexual dimorphism even at the age of 4–6 months when
horns start growing in males; at maturity males become conspicuously colored and have long horns (Shrestha 2003). The coats of
adult males are striking black or dark brown with white underparts, while the
coat of females and immature males varies from tan to darker brown. Blackbucks
live in open habitats such as grasslands, bush, and dry thorn scrub (Schaller
1967). The species was once distributed throughout western Pakistan from the
foothills of the Himalaya from Punjab through Uttar Pradesh in India to the Terai zone of Nepal, West Bengal (India) to Bangladesh (Lydekker 1924). It is currently listed as Least Concern
(LC) on the IUCN Red List (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2017), but
earlier it was categorized as Near Threatened (NT) (Mallon 2008). It is listed
in Appendix III in CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), and as a Schedule I species with highest
protection level in India under the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The
recent improvement in the conservation status of Blackbuck is probably due to
unintentional creation of more suitable open habitat by converting dense scrub
land and woodland to agricultural areas (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group
2017).
Various ecological and
behavioural aspects of Blackbuck have been studied in India (Gupta &
Bhardwaj 1990; Gehlot & Jakher
2007, 2011; Kumar & Rahmani 2008; Dookia et al. 2011; Gangotri & Gangotri 2014; Baskaran
et al. 2016; Prashanth et al. 2016; Debata 2017; Sagar & Antony 2017) and also in Khairapur,
Bardia District, Nepal (Pradhan et al. 1999; DNPWC
2012). In Haryana, Ranjitsinh (1989) reported 2,410
Blackbuck from Hisar district alone, from a total of 4,852 Blackbuck in the
state, making Hisar a high-density blackbuck area. So far, no detailed account
of its foraging behavior has been documented in
western Haryana.
The human population explosion,
large-scale poaching, destruction of natural habitats for commercial
cultivation, grazing activities and human habitation have caused Blackbuck to
disappear from many areas. The total population is estimated at 35,000 mature
individuals by IUCN (2017). Our primary census survey revealed that the
isolated Blackbuck populations in Fatehabad, Hisar
are in close proximity to villages dominated by the Bishnoi
community, and in some parts of southern Haryana Blackbuck share their habitat
with Nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus.
The main threats are habitat destruction, barbed wire fencing, feral dogs,
and illegal hunting.
Blackbucks are mainly diurnal,
but sometimes also active at night (Long 2003). They are gregarious (Schaller
1967) and mostly live in groups of single or mixed sexes numbering from 15 to
several thousand animals. Densities are 0.5–3 per ha (Long 2003). Their diet
includes grass, cereal crops and forbs, and they also browse on bushes (Long
2003). Blackbuck is reported as a crop pest in many habitats, where it eats
mainly the young shoots of cereal and pulses, in particular sorghum and millet
(Chauhan & Singh 1990).
Seasonal or interannual variation
in availability of resources suggests the presence of behavioral,
physiological and morphological adaptations in consumers (Van Schaik et al.
1993) and may influence the composition of vertebrate faunal communities
(Fleming et al. 1987). Furthermore, certain species of plants provide
alternative food sources during times of food scarcity, and thus may be vital
for population survival (Terborgh 1983). Group sizes
increase with habitat openness and resource availability. This information can
be helpful to assess the habitat requirements of animals, predict their
presence or abundance in other areas and the potential effects of habitat
transformation (Arthur et al. 1996; Rı´os-Uzeda et
al. 2006), and to support wildlife management plans (Morrison et al. 2006).
The present study was carried out
to characterize blackbuck habitats, activity patterns and resource usage in a
patch of natural vegetation in a human-dominated landscape outside the
protected area network in the semi-arid region of western Haryana. This information
will guide long-term conservation of the state animal of Haryana.
Description of Study
Area
The study site is situated in Badopal village of Fatehabad
district, commonly called ‘Blackbuck habitat Badopal’
in the Western part of the state Haryana of India (29.418N, 75.576’E). The
surrounding villages including Badopal are dominated
by the Bishnoi community which has high reverence and
tolerance towards blackbuck. Total area of study site is approximately 2.41 km2
including the area acquired by government to build a residential colony.
The rest of the land is owned by local farmers. The study also extended further
into the surrounding area of habitat under cultivation of different seasonal
crops.
Historical Background
(Blackbuck Habitat Badopal)
The study site was selected in
2012 by Nuclear Power Corporation Limited (NPCIL) for construction of a
residential colony on 183 acres (0.76 km2) of private and Panchyat land near Badopal
village of District Fatehabad. The site was enclosed
with blade wire fencing, resulting in the death of several blackbuck. This
situation met strong resistance and criticism by locals from Bishnoi communities along with other wildlife
organizations, and a case was filed with the National Green Tribunal (NGT)
which resulted in no further infrastructure being built by NPCIL. The site is
now governed and managed by the district administration, and the blackbuck
habitat is still in need of the development of a conservation plan by the state
government. Wildlife Institute of India (2015) did a reconnaissance and
recommended this area, including adjoining private land, as a community reserve
for conservation of blackbuck.
The study area lies in
biogeographic province 4-A, Semi-arid, Punjab Plains (Rodgers et al. 2000), and
the ‘Trans-Gangetic Plains Regions’ agroclimatic zone
under the ‘Arid to Semi-arid’ climatic region, which is characterized by scanty
rainfall, aridity and extremes of temperature. The vegetation comprises
predominantly xerophytes and is characterized as ‘tropical desert thorn’. This
site is a natural patch surrounded by a semi-arid agro-ecosystem.
Adjoining fields are used for growing crops such as wheat, maize, other
cereals, cotton, and pulses. Apart from Blackbuck, the habitat also supports
Nilgai, Desert Fox Vulpes vulpes pusilla, Asian Palm Civet Paradoxurus
hermaphrodites, Indian Hedgehog Paraechinus
micropus. Important reptiles include Monitor
Lizard Varanu ssp., Indian Cobra Naja naja.
METHODOLOGY
AND MATERIALS
Blackbuck group activity patterns
There are four seasons: monsoon
(June to August), autumn (September to November), winter (December to
February), and summer (March to May). Field observations were made from dawn to
dusk from September 2019 to August 2020. Field visits were conducted fortnightly
during each season to record the behavior and feeding
preferences of Blackbuck. Except winter, the observations were taken during
three diurnal phases: morning (0630–1000 h), noon (1200–1400 h), and evening
(1600–1900 h). There was a slight change in timing during winter to 0800–1100
h, 1300–1500 h, and 1600–1830 h in morning, afternoon, and evening,
respectively. Group activity patterns were recorded using the scan sampling
method (Altman 1974). The sampling time was 15 minutes continuously with a sampling
interval of 10 minutes. The observations recorded for the group activity were analyzed on hourly, monthly, and seasonal basis.
Number
of animals engaged in a particular activity in a sample
% Activity of group =
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x 100
Total
number of animal engaged in all activities in a sample
The group activities were
categorized as foraging, walking, resting, scanning/standing, social activities
(playing, fight display, sexual activities, and grooming) and other activities
(urination, defecation, marking, ear threat, and object aggression).
We calculated annual error mean
squares (percentage time) and error degree of freedom applying Duncan Multiple
Range Test (DMRT) using SPSS version 21.0 considering season(s) as
replication and group activities as treatments.
Vegetation sampling and food
preferences
Vegetation composition was
recorded by randomly sampling 10 quadrats of 20×20m. The tree composition of
each quadrat was counted whereas shrubs and herbs were counted within sub-quadrates
of 5×5m and 1x1m respectively. The density (D) of the flora was analyzed following Phillips (1959) and Mishra (1968).
Foraging activity was observed
using binoculars. After each feeding bout and once the animals moved, the plant
species eaten by the group were recorded. Diet preferences were also recorded
by calculating the number of attempts by the animals to consume a particular
plant species in a particular season. For this purpose we used quadrat sampling
for the area left and right of a line transect.
Note: Guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India to combat COVID-19
were strictly followed during field visits during the lockdown period.
Optical equipment
A Nikon COOLPIX P900 digital
camera and Nikon ACULON binoculars (8×42, 8°) were used for photography and
taking observations from long distances so as not to disturb the normal
activity of the animals.
RESULTS
Floral Composition
Plant species documented from the
study site included 14 trees, five shrubs, 31 herbs, and three climbers. Among
the trees, maximum density was demonstrated by Acacia senegal
(200 individuals/ha) followed by Melia azedarach (27.5
individuals/ha). Density of dominant shrubs, herbs and climbers were: Parthenium
hysterophorus (6170 individuals/ha), Artemisia
scoparia (13,200 individuals/ha), and Citrullus colocynthis
(702.5 individuals/ha).
Frequency class distribution
Frequency class distribution of
different plant species is shown in Figure 2.
Out of 53 plant species
identified in the habitat, it was observed that blackbuck largely prefer 26, as
shown in Table 1.
Blackbuck browsing on trees
varies according to season, with a maximum in summer and winter. The preference
for trees depends mainly on the availability and height of the tree. Data
suggests that the preferred parts of Acacia senegal
and Prosopis cineraria were leaves, whereas in case of Prosopis juliflora and Ziziphus jujuba, leaves, pods and fruits were preferred. Prosopis
juliflora was ignored during the monsoon season
due to availability of preferred food in ample quantity.
Only three species of shrub were
eaten by Blackbuck: Calotropis procera, Maytenuse marginata, Ziziphus nummularia. The literature available so far on
blackbuck has not reported Calotropis procera as a forage species, but our field
investigation revealed that in summer and winter preferences for Calotropis were medium and high respectively,
and low in monsoon and autumn. Blackbuck mainly feeds on the leaves of this
species during scarcity of other food.
A total of 18 species of herb
were mainly foraged on by the blackbucks especially in the monsoon and autumn
season (Table 1), Grasses like Cynodon dactylon, Eragrostis
spp., Dactylocteniuma egyptium,
Digera muricata, Digitaria spp., Cyperus rotundus were preferred in every season. Aerva javanica and Artemisia
scoparia are dominant herbs but consumed only
when the preferred grasses are not available especially in autumn and to some
extent in winter.
Most herbs were dominant in
monsoon and autumn season but either become dry or unfavorable
for feeding during winter and summer (Table 2). Many plant species listed in
Table 1 are also consumed by nilgai, so interspecific competition between
Blackbuck and Nilgai may result in resource partitioning. Crop raiding
increases during winter and summer seasons (Table 3).
Group activity pattern
Seasonal variations in group
activity of the blackbuck were recorded (Figs. 3 and 4)
The annual data suggests that
maximum time (62%) was spent for foraging activity during monsoon followed by
autumn (57%), summer (52%), and winter (50%) (Figure 4). Foraging activities
were directly related to availability of food. Blackbuck spent more time
resting in winter than in other seasons.
Diurnally, maximum number of crop
raids (28 raids/sighting) were observed in winter followed by summer (22
raids/sighting) and minimum (11 raids/sighting) in monsoon (Table 4). Public
opinion around the study site revealed that the crop raids were more prominent
at night than in daytime.
The foraging to walking ratio
The foraging to walking ratio is
a very important factor to evaluate the foraging success and assessment of
habitat in terms of food availability. The animals spent more time walking in
winter and summer season during less availability of food. The foraging to
walking ratios for monsoon and autumn were 5.16 and 4.07 respectively, higher
than summer and winter ratios of 3.71 and 3.12, respectively.
It was observed that blackbuck
group composition and population fluctuation are also affected by crop patterns
in the region due to high nutritional value of agricultural crops. The recorded
data indicates a strong relationship between the foraging walking ratio and
crop raiding during different season (Table 3).
All the annual group activities
were statistically significant (p <0.05) except social and other
activity. Foraging activity was maximum
followed by resting, walking, standing/scanning (Figure 5). As per the recorded
data, animal spent >3.0 times on foraging, fulfilling their food requirement
to performing all other such activities.
Conservation implications
Based on our primary census
survey, and the reconnaissance study of Wildlife Institute of India (2015) the
Blackbuck populations in the districts of western Haryana are fragmented and
distributed in small isolated patches surrounded by high human habitation and
intensive agricultural practices. All these small size populations in villages
like Mangali- Rawat Khera, Balsamand, (Hisar) Dhangar
(Community Reserve for Blackbuck, 25 acres (2019)), Badopal
(Current study site) (Fathehabad) harboring
in same climatic semi-arid conditions and plant communities. Due to
agricultural revolution and better irrigation system in Haryana, currently
these sites have no true grasslands as preferred by the blackbucks, so the
species have only options to feed on available plant species and consumed on
crops to fulfill its nutritional demands. Therefore,
the feeding pattern of the species has adapted according to the changing
climatic and floral compositions during time and space.
DISCUSSION
Meeting nutritional demands is
the most essential task for any animal (Parker et al. 2009). Challenges faced
by ruminant herbivores are mainly linked to forage quality (Drent
& Prins 1987; Illius
& Gordon 1992), because green plants provide a relatively small yield of
nutrients and require complicated mechanisms of fiber
digestion based on microbial fermentation (Van Soest
1994). Selecting forage with high protein and low fiber
content optimizes nutrient and energy intake and also reduces retention time,
thus increasing intake capacity (Van Soest 1994; Mysterud et al. 2001). Additional selection criteria
include the dietary need for essential minerals and secondary metabolites
(Cassini 1994). Habitat use results from multiscale and multifactorial
processes (Senft et al. 1987; Bailey et al.
1996; Van Beest et al. 2010) and its outcome in
terms of individual movement and distribution depends on habitat use by
multifactorial processes the outcome of which depended on the variations of
landscapes of food in space and time (Mueller & Fagan 2008).
Foraging patterns and food
preferences of blackbuck have been studied in Rajasthan and southern India, but
without relating feeding data to group activity patterns. Unlike chinkara Gazella bennettii,
Blackbucks are not found in true deserts, but attain their highest densities in
semi-arid grassland-scrub systems where they prefer short grasslands (<50
cm) and avoid wooded habitats and grasslands above shoulder height (Jhala 1991). Their diet primarily consists of grasses so
there is profound seasonality in their nutritional ecology. Pods and fallen
leaves of trees such as Acacia species and Prosopis juliflora are favored in
summer, and Dichanthium annulatum
during monsoon season (Jadeja et al. 2013). Berseem Trifolium alexandrinum and
oats Avena sativa are provided as food
sources for blackbuck in captivity (Pathak et al. 1992). Foraging activity is
at a minimum during summer, a little higher during winter and at a maximum
during the monsoon season (Nair 1975; Chattopadhyay & Bhattacharya 1986;
Kumar 1993). However, in this study foraging activity was slightly higher in
summer than winter. Blackbucks have access to high quantity and quality forage
during the monsoon (June–August) and early autumn (September) and in summer
(March–April) coinciding with periods of maximum grass growth, the other months
remain more or less dry to varying degrees.
Blackbucks are adapted to
grassland ecosystems, and have evolved to conserve water by increasing the urea
concentration in their urine and water reabsorption from their feces (Jhala et al. 1992). The
protein content of the blackbuck diet drops significantly (<4%) in summer,
well below the maintenance requirement for ruminants which is 5.5–9 % (Robbins
1983). During this period, protein digestibility is negative, i.e., Blackbuck
loses more protein via feces than they can obtain
from the forage. The digestibility of dry matter declines from a high of 76.5 %
during the monsoon to a low of 32 % during summer. Blackbuck adapt to this
low-quality diet by reducing intake from over 130g/kg 0.75 during the monsoon
to less than 20g/kg 0.75 during summer (Jhala 1997).
During the present investigation
the animals showed selectivity in food choices from available food in the
habitat. It was also noted that blackbuck feed on Calotropis
procera which is generally not eaten by
herbivores due to the high concentration of alkaloids.
The present study suggests that
the level of selectivity of food is not fully related to the dominance of plant
species in a particular season. For example, Verbesina
encelioides, Parthenium hysterophorus
dominated in summer and Verbesina encelioides was the second most dominant in the monsoon
but these plants were not the preferred food items of blackbuck. Similar
variations in the diet of the Blackbuck have been reported in northwestern, central, and southern India and in parts of
Nepal (Jhala 1997; Mahato
et al. 2010; Jhala & Isvaran
2016).
Like most tropical ungulates, the
body condition of Blackbuck cycles from good (during monsoon and autumn) to
poor (during late summers and winter) due to the utilization of body fat and
muscle proteins. To compensate their food requirements the animal shows
physiological and behavioral adaptations by shifting
to browsing instead of grazing and more crop raiding was reported during summer
and winter. The feeding to walking ratio observed in the present study was higher
in monsoon and autumn than in summer and winter and the number of crop raids
were lower in monsoon and autumn than summer and winter. Our findings are
supported by the observations of Hofmann (1989) that Blackbuck face a more
prolonged period of low nutrition during hot summer and dry winter in
comparison to other tropical ungulates studied in Africa as the dry spell in
India lasts for over nine months as compared to 4–6 months in Africa.
Blackbucks are unusual as they are relatively small (with correspondingly
higher energy requirements) and have specialized on a low-quality forage
source, i.e., grasses. A data set of the dietary preferences of mammalian
species can be useful in elucidating a wide range of ecological processes, such
as predator-prey interactions (Sinclair 2003; Jones & Safi 2011) and
eco-morphological diversification (Davies et al. 2007).
CONCLUSION
The food preferences and behavior of a species are determined by the biogeographic
region, climatic factors, food availability, prey-predator base and
interspecific competition. Blackbuck diets are influenced by all these
parameters. The present study is first of its kind in western Haryana on
dietary choice, seasonality of available food items and behavioral
shift from grazing to browsing by Blackbucks and will assist development of a
scientific conservation plan for the many fragmented population of this species
in and around Haryana. We would like to suggest that zoos of India which hold
Blackbuck should include these preferred wild plant species in Blackbuck diet.
The present study also emphasizes to the district and state authorities to
notify and conserve this habitat as a community reserve and to include
participation by local people to strengthen community-based wildlife conservation
in the area.
For
figures & images - - click here
REFERENCES
Altmann, J.
(1974). Observational
study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behavior
49: 227–265. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00534
Arthur, S.M.,
B.F.J. Manly, L.L. MacDonald & G.W. Garner (1996). Assessing habitat selection when
availability changes. Ecology 77: 215–227.
Bailey, D.W.,
E.G. John, A.L. Emilio, R.R. Larry, B.C. Michael, M.S. David & L.S. Phillip
(1996). Mechanisms
that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. Journal of
Range Management 49: 386–400.
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/10.1016/j.mambio.2016.02.004
Bell, W.J.
(1991). Searching
Behaviour: The Behavioural Ecology of Finding Resources. Chapman and Hall Ltd, London,
UK, 370 pp.
Bowyer, R.T.
& J.G. Kie (2006). Effects of scale on interpreting
life-history characteristics of ungulates and carnivores. Diversity and
Distributions 12: 244–257.
Büchi, L. & S. Vuilleumier
(2014). Coexistence
of specialist and generalist species is shaped by dispersal and environmental
factors. The American Naturalist 183: 612–624.
Cassini, M.
(1994). Behavioral mechanisms of selection of diet components and their ecological
implications in herbivorous mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 75: 733–740.
Chattopadhay, B. & T. Bhattacharya
(1986). Basic diurnal
activity pattern of blackbuck Antilope cervicapra Linn. of Ballavpur
Wildlife Sanctuary, W.B. and its seasonal variation. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 83(3): 553–561.
Chauhan,
N.P.S. & R. Singh (1990). Crop Damage by Over abundant Populations of Nilgai and
Blackbuck in Haryana (India) and its Management, pp. 218–220. Proceedings of
the Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference .
Davies, T.J.,
S. Meiri, T.G. Barracloughand
& J.L. Gittleman (2007). Species co-existence and
character divergence across carnivores. Ecology Letters 10: 146–152.
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
DNPWC (2012). Chitwan National Park (Booklet).
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Dookia, S., S.K. Das, S.S. Poonia, G. Gupta & Rajlakshmi
(2011). Taal Chhapar Blackbuck Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India: a threatened
ecosystem, pp. 70–77. In: Proceedings of the National Seminar on the Natural
Resource Management and Environmental Issues, Govt. Lohia
PG, College, Churu, Rajasthan, 170pp.
Dookia, S. & G.R. Jakher (2007). Food and Feeding Habit of Indian Gazelle (Gazellabennettii), in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan. Indian
Forester 133(10): 1327–1340.
Drent, R.H. & H.H.T. Prins (1987). The herbivore as prisoner of its food supply, pp.
131–147. In: van Andel, J., J.P. Bakker & R.W. Snaydon (eds.). Disturbance inGgrasslands.
Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.
Eisenberg,
J.F. (1981). The Mammalian
Radiations: an Analysis of Trends in Evolution, Adaptation, and Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Fleming,
T.H., R. Breitwisch & G.H. Whitesides
(1987).Patterns of
tropical vertebrate frugivore diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 18: 91–109.
Gangotri,
V.M. & M.S. Gangotri (2014). Time-budget of different life history stages of the
Blackbuck, Antilope cervicapra
(Linnaeus), pp. 71–77. In: Advances in Biotechnology and Patenting. Elsevier
Publication, New Delhi, 339 pp.
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.
Hofmann, R.R.
(1989). Evolutionary
steps of ecophysiological adaptation and
diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78: 443–457.
Illius, A.W. & I.J. Gordon (1992). Modelling the nutritional ecology
of ungulate herbivores: evolution of body size and competitive interactions. Oecologia 89: 428–434.
IUCN SSC
Antelope Specialist Group (2017). Antilope
cervicapra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2017:e.T1681A50181949. Downloaded on 10 September 2020. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20172.RLTS.T1681A50181949.en
Jadeja, S., S. Prasad, S. Quader & K. Isvaran (2013). Antelope mating strategies
facilitate invasion of grasslands by a woody weed. Oikos 122(10):
1441–1452.
Jhala Y.V., R.H. Giles Jr. & A.M.
Bhagwat (1992). Water in the
ecophysiology of blackbuck. Journal of Arid Environments 22: 261–269.
Jhala, Y.V. (1991). Habitat and population dynamics
of wolves and blackbuck in Velavadar National Park,
Gujarat, India. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg
Jhala, Y.V. (1997). Seasonal effects on the
nutritional ecology of blackbuck Antelope cervicapra.
Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 1348–1358.
Jhala, Y.V. & K. Isvaran (2016). Behavioural Ecology of a
Grassland Antelope, the blackbuck Antilope cervicapra: Linking Habitat, Ecology and Behavior, pp. 151–176. In: Ahrestani,
F.S. & M. Sankaran (eds.). The Ecology of Large Herbivores in South and
Southeast Asia. Springer Nature Publication, Dordrecht.
Jones, K.E.
& K. Safi (2011). Ecology and evolution of mammalian biodiversity. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 366: 2451–2461.
Jones, K.E.,
J. Bielby, M. Cardillo, S.A. Fritz, J. O’Dell &
C.D.L. Orme (2009). PanTHERIA: a species-level database of
life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals. Ecology
90: 2648.
Kissling,
W.D., C. Rahbek & K. Böhning-Gaese
(2007). Food plant
diversity as broad-scale determinant of avian frugivore richness. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 274: 799–808.
Kronfeld, N. & T. Dayan (1998). A new method of determining
diets of rodents. Journal of Mammalogy 79: 1198–1202.
Kubale, V. (2010). Taste Perception: From Anatomical
To Molecular Level. Institute of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Veterinary
Faculty, University in Ljubljana, Gerbičeva 60,
SI-1115 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Slov Vet Res
47(3): 107–127.
Kumar, A.
(1993). The ecology
and behaviour of Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra, Ph.D. Thesis, M.D.S. University, Ajmer.
Kumar, S. &
A.R. Rahmani (2008). Predation by Wolves (Canis lupus pallipes)
on Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra)
in the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, Nannaj,
Maharashtra, India. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences 34(2): 99–112.
Lever, J.J.,
E.H. Van Nes, M. Scheffer
& J. Bascompte (2014). The sudden collapse of pollinator
communities. Ecology Letters 17: 350–359.
Long, J.L.
(2003). Introduced
mammals of the world: their history, distribution and influence, CSIRO
Publishing, Victoria, Australia, 486pp.
Lydekker, R. (1924). The Game Animals of India, Burma,
Malaya and Tibet. Gyan
Publishing House, London, 450pp.
Mahato, A.K. Roy, Ramakrishna & M. Raziuddin (2010). Status, Ecology and Behaviour of Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus,
1758) in Proposed Community Reserve for Blackbuck, Ganjam
District, Orissa, India. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 160pp.
Makin, D.F.,
C.J. Simon & A.M. Shrader (2018). Changes in feeding behavior and patch use by herbivores in response to the
introduction of a new predator. Journal of Mammalogy 99(2):
341–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyx17
Mallon, D.P.
(2008). Antilope cervicapra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2008: e.T1681A6448761. Downloaded on 09.xi.2016. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.
T1681A6448761.en
Mishra, R.
(1968). Ecology
Work-Book. Oxford and
IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, 242 pp.
Morrison,
M.L., B.G. Marcot & R.W. Mannan (2006). Wildlife Habitat Relationships,
Concepts and Applications. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 493 pp.
Mougi, A. & M. Kondoh
(2012). Diversity of
interaction types and ecological community stability. Science 337:
349–351.
Mueller, T.
& W.F. Fagan (2008).Search and navigation in dynamic environments - from individual behaviors to population distributions. Oikos 117:
654–664.
Mysterud, A., R. Langvatn,
N.G. Yoccoz & N.C. Stenseth
(2001). Plant
phenology, migration and geographical variation in body weight of a large
herbivore: the effect of a variable topography. Journal of Animal Ecology
70: 915–923.
Nair, S.S.
(1976). A population
survey and observations on the behaviour of the blackbuck in the Point Calimere Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 73: 304–310.
Nowak, R.M.
(1999). Walker’s
Mammals of the World, Volumes 1 and 2. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 2015pp.
Parker, K.L.,
P.S. Barboza & M.P. Gillingham (2009). Nutrition integrates
environmental responses of animals. Functional Ecology 23: 57–69.
Pathak, N.N.,
N. Kewalramani & D.N. Kamra
(1992). Intake and
digestibility of oats Avena sativa and
berseem Trifolium alexandrinum
in adult blackbuck Antilope cervicapra. Small Ruminant Research 8(3):
265–268.
Phillips,
E.A. (1959). Methods of
Vegetation Study. Henry Holt
and Co., Inc, New York, 107 pp.
Pradhan,
N.M., S.R. Bhatta, S.R. Jnawali & S.R. Pathak (1999). Blackbuck
Conservation Study Report. RBNP, Bardiya, Nepal (Script
in Nepali).
Prashanth,
M.B., A.M. Mathivanan & T. Ganesh (2016). Conservation of a fragmented
population of Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra. Current Science 3(3): 543–549.
Ranjitsinh, M.K. (1989). The Indian Blackbuck. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun, 155pp.
Rı´os-Uzeda, B., H.Go´
mez & R.B.Wallace
(2006). Habitat
preferences of the Andean Bear (Tremarctus ornatus) in the Bolivian Andes. Journal of Zoology
268: 271–278.
Robbins, C.R.
(1983). Wildlife
Feeding and Nutrition. Academic Press, New York, 366 pp.
Rodgers,
W.A., H.S. Panwar & V.B. Mathur (2000). Wildlife Protected Area Network
in India: A Review (Executive Summary). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
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
Schaik,
V.C.P., J.W. Terborgh & S.J. Wright (1993). The phenology of tropical
forests: adaptive significance and consequences for primary consumers. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 24: 353–377.
Schaller,
G.B. (1967). The Deer and
The Tiger. Chicago
University Press, Chicago, USA, 384pp.
Senft, R.L., M.B. Coughenour,
D.W. Bailey, L.R. Rittenhouse, O.E. Sala & D.M. Swift (1987). Large herbivore foraging and
ecological hierarchies. Bioscience 37: 789–799.
Shrestha,
T.K. (2003). Wildlife of
Nepal. Kathmandu,
Nepal, 190 pp.
Sinclair,
A.R. (2003). Mammal
population regulation, keystone processes and ecosystem dynamics. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 358: 1729–1740.
Terborgh, J. (1983). Five New World Primates: A Study in
Comparative Ecology. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Retrieved August 7,
2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7ztr6n
Ungar, P.S.
(2010). Mammal
Teeth: Origin, Evolution, and Diversity. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 304 pp.
van Beest, F.M., M. Atle, E.L. Leif
& M.M. Jos (2010). Forage quantity, quality and depletion as scale-dependent mechanisms
driving habitat selection of a large browsing herbivore. Journal of Animal
Ecology 79: 910–922.
van Soest, P.J. (1994). Nutritional Ecology of the
Ruminant. Cornell
University Press, New York, 488 pp.
Wildlife
Institute of India (2015). Blackbuck and its habitat in and adjoining landscape of NPCIL colony
site., Badopal, Fathehabad,
Haryana state. Reconnaissance survey report. WII Dehradun, 9–13pp.
Wilson, D.E.
& D.A.M. Reeder (2005). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic
Reference. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 2142 pp.
Zweifel-Schielly, B., M. Kreuzer, K.C. Ewald
& W. Suter (2009). Habitat selection by an Alpine ungulate: the significance of forage
characteristics varies with scale and season. Ecography
32: 103–113.