Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2023 | 15(4): 23005–23015

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7337.15.4.23005-23015

#7337 | Received 16 April 2021 | Final received 26 February 2023 | Finally accepted 30 March 2023

Mammalian diversity of Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, India

Nimain Charan Palei ¹, Bhakta Padarbinda Rath ² & Sudeep Nayak ³

^1,2 Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha, Prakruti Bhawan, Plot No. 1459, Green Park Nursery, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 751007, India.

³ Divisional Forest Officer, Hirakud Wildlife Division, Motijharan, Brooks Hill, Sambalpur, Odisha 768001, India.

¹ wildpalei@gmail.com (corresponding author), ² bhaktamca@gmail.com, ³ hirakudwildlife1sudeep@gmail.com

Editor: Honnavalli N. Kumara, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore, India. Date of publication: 26 April 2023 (online & print)

Citation: Palei, N.C., B.P. Rath & S. Nayak (2023). Mammalian diversity of Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(4): 23005–23015. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7337.15.4.23005-23015

Copyright: © Palei et al. 2023. 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: Forest Department, Government of Odisha, India.

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Author details: Nimain Charan Palei is studying human-elephant coexistence management and implementation of corridor management for safe passage of elephants between fragmented habitats. For the past 10 years he has been studying elephant migration in Odisha. His research interest’s ecology wild animal, population dynamics, human-wildlife conflict, camera trapping, photography, and videography of wildlife. Shri Bhakta Padarbinda Rath is working as a Wildlife Researcher in Odisha State since 03.07.2009. He is consistently working for conservation of wildlife and its habitat, studying the missing link between fragmented habitats and their distribution, migration, and movement pattern of wild animals in the state of Odisha. Shri Sudeep Nayak is a senior Indian Forest Service Officer and currently working as Chief Executive, State Medicinal Plant Board, Odisha. He is very concern on conservation of forest, wildlife, and natural habitat at sustainable utilization of natural resources. He has served 35 years of service in Odisha Forest Department.

Author contributions: Nimain Charan Palei - field data collection, analysis, and manuscript writing; Bhakta Padarbinda Rath- conducted field survey, camera trapping and data analysis, Sudeep Nayak- developed the idea, manuscript writing and supervised the project.

Acknowledgements: We are thankful to Dr. Sandeep Tripathi, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha Forest Department and Divisional Forest Officer, Hirakud Wildlife Division for supporting the study. Thanks to the Sri Basanta Barik, Range Officer, Sri Bhubaneswar Patra, Forester of Kamgaon Wildlife Range, and Sri Abhiram Patra, Range Officer, Sanjeeb Panad, Forester of Lakhanpur Wildlife Range for his valuable support in field level other field staff of who accompanied us in various field trips and provided other valuable field information. Thanks to Dr. Himanshu Sekhar Palei for preparing the study area map. We are thankful towards the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions for improvising the manuscript.

Abstract: Camera traps were deployed at 123 stations in an area of 346.91 km² in Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary between 25 August 2018 and 29 December 2019 that provided the effort of 3,150 trap-days. Of the 2,767 photo captures, 1,304 were mammals belonging to 13 families and 27 large and medium-sized mammals were recorded in the study area. Carnivores were especially diverse, with 11 species recorded with particular four felidae including Tiger Pantera tigris, Leopard Panthera pardus, and globally threatened Rusty-spotted Cats which extended the range of this species. Leopard was the most captured species with the highest relative abundance (RAI = 5.68) among the carnivore species, whereas the Indian Pangolin Manis crassicaudata (RAI = 0.06) had the lowest abundance. We provide photographic evidence of mammalian species and highlight the importance of conservation of dry deciduous forests for threatened and vulnerable species in the study area. The current camera trap survey is expected to help in the formulation of management strategies for long-term conservation of mammalian species in Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary.

Keywords: Camera trapping, eastern India, livestock pressure, Odisha, photographic evidence, relative abundance index.

INTRODUCTION

Camera trapping has been proved to be an effective method in monitoring elusive and nocturnal species along with population estimation of naturally marked individuals using spatially explicit capture-recapture models (Karanth & Nichols 1998; Harihar et al. 2014). Alternatively, for indistinguishable individuals of species such as ungulates, bears, and other small mammals; generally photo capture rate (photographs/ trapping effort) has been widely used to estimate the relative abundance (Datta et al. 2008; Sathyakumar et al. 2011; Palei et al. 2015, 2016, 2021; Debata & Swain 2018; Dhendup et al. 2019; Ahmed et al. 2021). Although the use of relative abundance index (RAI) generated from camera trap encounter rates is controversial as it gets biased with animal body mass and study design (Sollmann et al. 2013), there are examples of a linear relationship between RAI and abundance, estimation, especially of cryptic species (Karanth et al. 1998; Datta et al. 2008; Rovero & Marshall 2008; Rovero & Marshall 2009; Jenks et al. 2011; Gonthier et al. 2013; Lahker et al. 2018). In the Papikonda hills, northern Eastern Ghats, 23 mammal species were recorded during camera trap survey (Aditya & Ganesh 2017). In Odisha several mammalian studies were reported; (Tiwari et al. 2002) first compiled 37 species of mammals from Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary. Ramakrishna et al. (2006) reported 55 species of mammals from Similipal Biosphere Reserve encompassing the Similipal Wildlife Sanctuary and Similipal Tiger Reserve. Mohapatra et al. (2009, 2012, 2013) reported 36 species of mammals from different hill forests of southern Odisha, 43 species from Kotgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, and 47 species from several sacred groves in Sundargarh District. Murmu et al. (2013) also reported 23 species of mammals of Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary, and 42 species of mammals from Hadagarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Recently, (Debata & Swain 2020) surveyed the mammalian fauna of an urban-influenced zone of Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary using camera traps and reported 14 species of mammals. Debata et al. (2018) also reported 20 species of mammals of Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary. Palei et al. (2020) reported 22 species of mammals of Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary. Palei et al. (2021) reported 19 species of mammals from Hadagarh Wildlife Sanctuary. In the present study we carried out a camera trap survey in the tropical dry deciduous forest of Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary and provide the first photographic evidence and updated checklist of mammals in the Sanctuary.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

The Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary (DWS) is located between the latitudes 21.5570⁰N and the longitudes 83.6461⁰E (Image 1). The division shares its boundaries with Chhattisgarh State. DWS covers 346.91 km² and is dominated by tropical dry-deciduous forests, northern tropical dry-deciduous, and dry-mixed deciduous forests (Champion & Seth 1968). The mean daily temperatures in winters range from 8─20 ⁰C and in summers from 28─48 ⁰C. The average annual rainfall of the sanctuary and the nearby areas varies from 1,000─1,450 mm. Most villagers in the sanctuary are tribal, and their activities inside the forest are grazing livestock and collection of forest products (e.g., fodder for livestock, non-timber forest products).

As per (Champion & Seth 1968) classification, both the reserved forests of this Sanctuary come under the northern tropical dry deciduous forests under, dry mixed deciduous forests, and bamboo brakes. Sal Shorea robusta is the main species in both the forest blocks containing dry deciduous vegetation and it occurs in pure patches to occasional mixed patches in miscellaneous vegetation in the division. Vegetation on hill slopes and upper portions is predominantly miscellaneous consisting of a high proportion of Dhaura Anogeissus latifolia, Moi Lannea coromandelica, Salai Boswellia serrata, Karada Cleistanth uscollinus, and Barabakulia Dalbergia aniculata. However, Sal, which is the principal species, still constitutes a major proportion of the crop as compared to the miscellaneous species but undoubtedly its survival and status, particularly regeneration status, has deteriorated over the years due to excessive biotic interferences and soil erosion. Bamboos occur in almost all parts of the sanctuary over extensive areas of forests. The species of bamboo covering large tracts of hills is Dendrocalamus strictus Salia bamboo throughout the sanctuary.

We first carried out an extensive reconnaissance survey in three wildlife forest ranges within Hirakud Wildlife Range, Kamgaon Wildlife Range, and Lakhanpur Wildlife Range of DWS. During the survey, signs of carnivores, viz., scats, pug-marks, claw marks, scraps, and scent marks, were recorded and geo-referenced using a geographical positioning system (GPS).

Camera positioning

We conducted a camera trapping survey from 25 August 2018─29 December 2019: first phase (43 camera trap stations), second phase (40 camera trap stations), and third phase (40 camera trap stations) covering the three ranges of Hirakud, Kamgaon, and Lakhanpur Wildlife Ranges of DWS (Image 1). A total of 123 camera trap stations were established in the study area (Image 1). Most suitable camera trap stations were selected based on frequently used by the wildlife (e.g., along trails, forest roads, near stream beds, and around water holes). At each camera trap station, a pair of automated motion-triggered digital camera-traps (Cuddeback Model C1; Non Typical, Inc., Green Bay, WI) was placed on both sides of the roads, facing each other, placed around 30–40 cm above the ground without using lure or bait. Camera-trap placement at trails optimizes the capture of large as well as small animals. Cameras were checked every week to replace the batteries and memory cards and to ensure their proper functioning. Total sampling effort was calculated as the sum of the effective days across all stations that each camera was functioning (Boitani & Powell 2012). We considered photos separated by at least 30 min as independent events (Ohashi et al. 2013; Guo et al. 2017).

Data on large and medium sized mammals, human trafficking, and livestock including date, time, year, and behavior were collated from camera trap photographs. Relative abundance index (RAI) was calculated as RAI = A/NX100

Where A is the total number of independent detections of a species by all cameras and N is the total number of camera trap days by all the cameras throughout the study area following (Jenks et al. 2011). All animals captured (photographed) in the camera traps were identified to the species level and the time and date of the capture (inbuilt in the camera) were noted. Consequently, each photo was rated as a dependent or independent event. All camera trap pictures were screened for the presence of animals and all data was entered in an Office ACCESS 2010 database. Identification of the animals was done using the field guide (Menon 2014). We assessed species’ conservation significance on a global and national level according to the threat categories assigned in the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2017).

RESULTS

A total of 123 locations of camera trapping effort over 3,150 trap nights with 2,767 photographs were captured; 1,304 photographs of mammals belonging to 13 families and 27 species were recorded in the study area. Table 2 shows all identified species (common and scientific names), the total number of pictures obtained, the RAI for each species as well as the total number of locations where each species was photographed (Image 4─30). Out of all the photographs, recorded during the study period, the of majority of 49% (n = 1,304) were wildlife, and mostly herbivorous mammals 30% (n = 794) followed by carnivore mammals 13% (n = 341), omnivore mammals 6% (n = 169), birds 5% (n = 130), and the remaining photographs were anthropogenic from the movement of livestock, feral dogs, and human traffic 46% (n = 1,242) (Figure 2).

Besides that, camera traps also captured 10 bird species including the Indian Pea Fowl (RAI = 1.49, 46 locations) followed by Red Jungle Fowl (RAI = 1.21, 15 locations), and the Booted Eagle & Black-necked Ibis, which were the minimum photographed species (RAI = 0.16, each 2 locations). Concerning large mammals, Panthera pardus represented high relative abundance (RAI = 5.68, 45 locations) among the Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus (RAI = 4.13, 55 locations), and the Wild Boar Sus scrofa (RAI = 3.81, 54 locations). Indian Pangolin Manis crassicaudata (RAI = 0.06, 2 locations) was represented by a relatively low abundance in the study area (Figure 1).

Among all the anthropogenic activity the highest activity inside the sanctuary, were livestock, human traffic, and feral dogs (RAI = 24.63) followed by forest department staff (RAI = 13.58) and poachers were the minimum photographed species (RAI = 0.76) (Figure 1). Detailed information on the species RAI of mammals and various anthropogenic activities throughout the sampling areas is given in (Table 1).

DISCUSSION

The Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary is home to 15 species of mammals represented by (Nayak 2016). Our study confirmed that of the 27 mammalian species recorded during the camera tap survey, carnivore species were the most common at each study site followed by herbivores. Only two species of medium-sized carnivores were found in our study, Jungle Cat Felis chaus, and Rusty-spotted Cat Prionailurus rubiginosus. But according to the camera trap survey in DWS there are 12 more species recorded (Dhole, Rusty-spotted Cat, Jungle Cat, Striped Hyena, Indian Fox, Jackal, Ruddy Mongoose, Small Indian Civet, Indian Pangolin, Rhesus Macaque, Barking Deer, and Ratel). As per the elephant census of 2017 there are 20 elephants recorded in the sanctuary (Palei et al. 2017) but there was no photo capture during the camera trap survey.

A small area of the sanctuary was sampled and one female tiger was photo captured (Jhala et al. 2020) from Lakhanpur Wildlife Range, and also in Kamgaon Wildlife Range of DWS during its movement. This movement was subsequently found within the sanctuary in August 2018 and photo captured in Mundamahul, Chowrasimal, Jhagadabehera, Khajuria, and Damodarpada. Among all the species, the Indian Grey Wolf Canis lupus, Dhole Cuon alpinus, Jackal Canis aureus, Striped Hyena Hyaena hyena, and Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis were the less frequently photo-captured in the study area. Indian Gaur and Sambar were the most common ungulate species, while leopards were the most common carnivore species. Rusty-spotted Cat, Dhole, Hyena, Indian Fox, Indian Pangolin, Rattle, and Chowsingha were photo captured for the first time in the camera traps survey.

Feral dogs were common prey animals occurring abundantly in the sanctuary area. However, the feral dogs were detected in a few locations 35 (27.78%) out of 126 locations in the study areas and is unlikely to have any significant effect on forest mammals. Relative abundance index of livestock was higher than any other species photo-captured in the sanctuary and is indicative of the high level of human traffic and movement of livestock (RAI = 24.63; Table 1) disturbance in the sanctuary. The presence of domestic animals can have a detrimental effect on distribution and assemblage of wild animal communities and account for detections under anthropogenic disturbance in DWS, much less than in Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary, Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary, and Similipal Tiger Reserve (Palei et al. 2015, 2020; Debata & Swain 2018). Many human trails, paths, and traps were found across the study area indicating that the local people regularly go for fishing in Hirakud reservoir adjacent to the sanctuary area. It may be assumed that probably other small mammalian species which were present in the sanctuary have not been captured by the camera traps. Biotic pressure (especially non timber forest product (NTFP) collection, livestock grazing, and fishing in the Hirakud Reservoir by the local community round the year) in the forest reduces resource availability in DWS.

In conclusion, the DWS could be an important habitat and source population for mammals in western Odisha, because of abundant prey, lack of disturbance, and good habitat connectivity with the central India landscape. Certainly, further research is needed to learn about animal diversity and distribution patterns throughout the sanctuary. This study highlights the rich potential of the sanctuary in relation to the mammalian diversity in Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary.

Table 1. Comparative relative abundance index (RAI) of different wildlife species and others based on camera trap photographs in Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary during the field work with their current IUCN Red List status and type of encounter.

	Common name	Families	Scientific name	WPA Status	IUCN Status	N Camera trap stations with occurrence	%	Total Photo Captured	RAI
	Mammals
1	Tiger	Felidae	Panthera tigris	Schedule-I	EN	12	9.52	42	1.33
2	Leopard	Felidae	Panthera pardus	Schedule-I	EN	45	35.71	179	5.68
3	Rusty-spotted Cat	Felidae	Prionailurus rubiginosus	Schedule-I	EN	4	3.17	6	0.19
4	Jungle Cat	Felidae	Felis chaus	Schedule-II	LC	25	19.84	36	1.14
5	Dhole	Canidae	Canis alpinus	Schedule-I	EN	10	7.94	30	0.95
6	Indian Grey Wolf	Canidae	Cuon lupus	Schedule-I	LC	8	6.35	10	0.32
7	Jackal	Canidae	Canis aureus	Schedule-II	LC	9	7.14	26	0.83
8	Striped Hyeana	Hyaenidae	Hyaena hyaena	Schedule-III	NT	5	3.97	8	0.25
9	Indian Fox	Canidae	Vulpes bengalensis	Schedule-II	LC	2	1.59	4	0.13
10	Small Indian Civet	Viverridae	Viverricula indica	Schedule-II	LC	20	15.87	38	1.21
11	Common Palm Civet	Viverridae	Paradoxurus hemaphroditus	Schedule-II	LC	12	9.52	20	0.63
12	Sloth Bear	Ursidae	Melursus ursinus	Schedule-I	EN	55	43.65	130	4.13
13	Wild Boar	Suidae	Sus scrofa	Schedule-III	LC	54	42.86	120	3.81
14	Porcupine	Hystricidae	Hystrix indica	Schedule-IV	LC	40	31.75	46	1.46
15	Ratel	Mustelidae	Mellivora capensis	Schedule-I	LC	18	14.29	39	1.24
16	Rhesus Macaque	Cercopithecidae	Macaca mulatta	Schedule-II	LC	34	26.98	85	2.70
17	Hanuman Langur	Cercopithecidae	Semnopithecus entellus	Schedule-II	LC	52	41.27	76	2.41
18	Indian Gaur	Bovidae	Bos gaurus	Schedule-I	VU	30	23.81	88	2.79
19	Nilgai	Bovidae	Boselaphus tragocamelus	Schedule-III	LC	8	6.35	36	1.14
20	Four-Horned Antelope	Bovidae	Tetracerous quadricornis	Schedule-I	EN	61	48.41	35	1.11
21	Sambar	Cervidae	Rusa unicolor	Schedule-III	VU	46	36.51	80	2.54
22	Barking Deer	Cervidae	Muntiacus muntjak	Schedule-III	LC	16	12.70	26	0.83
23	Cheetal	Cervidae	Axis axis	Schedule-III	LC	28	22.22	56	1.78
24	Indian Hare	Leporidae	Lepus nigricollis	Schedule-IV	LC	19	15.08	28	0.89
25	Indian Pangolin	Manidae	Manis crassicaudata	Schedule-I	NT	2	1.59	2	0.06
26	Grey Mongoose	Herpestidae	Herpestes edwardsii	Schedule-II	LC	8	6.35	16	0.51
27	Ruddy Mongoose	Herpestidae	Herpestes smithii	Schedule-II	LC	15	11.90	42	1.33
	Birds
28	Crested Serpent Eagle	Accipitridae	Spilornis cheela	Schedule-IV	LC	2	1.59	2	0.06
29	Indian Pea Fowl	Phasianidae	Pavo cristatus	Schedule-I	LC	46	36.51	47	1.49
30	Red Jungle Fowl	Phasianidae	Gallus gallus	Schedule-IV	LC	15	11.90	38	1.21
31	Painted Spurfowl	Phasianidae	Galloperdix lunulata	Schedule-IV	LC	2	1.59	4	0.13
32	Black Napped Ibis	Threskiornithidae	Pseudibis papillosa	Schedule-IV	LC	2	1.59	5	0.16
33	Lesser Adjutant	Ciconiidae	Leptoptilos javanicus	Schedule-IV	VU	1	0.79	2	0.06
34	Grey Francolin	Phasianidae	Francolinus pondicerianus	Schedule-IV	LC	5	3.97	12	0.38
35	Brown Fish Owl	Strigidae	Ketupa zeylonensis	Schedule-IV	LC	8	6.35	1	0.03
36	Jungle Babbler	Leiothrichidae	Argya striata	Schedule-IV	LC	5	3.97	14	0.44
37	Booted Eagle	Accipitridae	Hieraaetus pennatus	Schedule-IV	LC	2	1.59	5	0.16
	Reptiles
38	Monitor Lizard	Varanidae	Varanus bengalensis	Schedule-I	LC	2	1.59	2	0.06
	Human traffic and livestock
39	Forest department staff					62	49.21	260	8.25
40	Department vehicle					48	38.10	168	5.33
41	Private vehicle of villagers					36	28.57	186	5.90
42	Villagers					28	22.22	154	4.89
43	Poachers					12	9.52	24	0.76
44	Cattle, goat and buffalo					64	50.79	328	10.41
45	Feral dog					35	27.78	108	3.43

EN—Endangered | NT—Near Threatened | VU—Vulnerable | LC— Least Concern | RAI—Relative abundance index | IUCN—International Union for Conservation of Nature | WPA—Wildlife Protection Act.

For figures & images - - click here for complete PDF

REFERENCES

Aditya, V. & T. Ganesh (2017). Mammals of Papikonda Hills, northern Eastern Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(10): 10823–10830. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3021.9.10.10823-10830

Ahmed, T., H.S. Bargali, N. Verma & A. Khan (2021). Mammals Outside Protected Areas: Status and Response to Anthropogenic Disturbance in Western Terai-Arc Landscape, Proceeding of Zoological Society 74: 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-020-00360-4

Boitani, L. & R.A. Powell (2012). Carnivore Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford University Press.

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

Datta, A., M.O. Anand & R. Naniwadekar (2008). Empty forest: Large carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India. Biological Conservation 141: 1429–1435.

Debata, S. & K.K Swain (2018). Estimating mam-malian diversity and relative abundance using camera traps in a tropical deciduous forest of Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary, eastern India. Mammal Study 43: 45–53.

Debata, S. & K.K. Swain (2020). Mammalian fauna in an urban influenced zone of Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary in Odisha, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(8): 15767–15775. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.554915767-15775

Dhendup, T., K. Thinley & U. Tenzin (2019). Mammal diversity in a montane forest in central Bhutan. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(13): 14757–14763. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5058.11.13.14757-14763

Gonthier, D.J. & F.E. Castañeda (2013). Large- and medium-sized mammal survey using camera traps in the Sikre River in the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras. Tropical Conservation Science 6(4): 584–591.

Guo, W., G. Cao & R.-C. Quan (2017). Population dynamics and space use of wild boar in a tropical forest, Southwest China. Global Ecology & Conservation 11: 115–124.

Harihar, A., B. Pandav & D.C. MacMillan (2014). Identifying realistic recovery targets and conservation actions for Tigers in a human-dominated landscape using spatially explicit densities of wild prey and their determinants. Diversity and Distributions 20(5): 567–578.

IUCN (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 20 June 2020.

Jhala, Y.V., Q. Qureshi & A.K. Nayak (eds.) (2020). Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India (2018). National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 390 pp.

Jenks, K., E. Chanteap, P. Damrongchainarong, K. Cutter, P. Cutter, P. Redford, T. Lynam, A.J. Howard & P Leimgruber (2011). Using relative abundance indices from camera-trapping to test wildlife conservation hypotheses-an example from KhaoYai National Park, Thailand. Tropical Conservation Science 4: 113–131.

Karanth, K.U. & J.D. Nichols (1998). Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79: 2852–2862.

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

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

Mohapatra, P.P., P.K. Das, S.N. Mishra & D.K. Sahu (2009). Biodiversity assessment of some selected hill forests of south Orissa. Vasundhara, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, 69 pp.

Mohapatra, P.P., S.K. Sajan, H.S. Palei & S. Debata (2012). Diversity, distribution and abundance of major faunal groups of Kotagarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Nature, Environment & Wildlife Society, Angul, Odisha, 87 pp.

Mohapatra, P.P., P.K. Dash, H.S. Palei, S. Debata & V. Sarkar (2013). Protection and conservation of Sacred Groves of Bonai Division, Odisha. Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 175 pp.

Murmu, A., P.C. Mazumdar & S. Chaudhuri (2013). Vertebrate (birds and mammals) faunal composition of Hadagarh WS. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No. 341. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 56 pp.

Nayak, S. (2016). Wildlife Management Plan of Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary, 162 pp.

Ohashi, H., M. Saito, R. Horie, H. Tsunoda, H. Noba & H. Hishii (2013). Differences in the activity pattern of the wild boar Sus scrofa related to human disturbance. European Journal of Wildlife Research 59: 167–177.

Palei, H.S., H.K. Sahu & A.K. Nayak (2016). Ungulate densities and biomass in the tropical moist deciduous forest of Similipal Tiger Reserve, India. National Academy Science Letter 39(4): 255–258.

Palei, N.C. & B.P. Rath (2017). Wildlife Odisha 2017, pp. 37–48. In: Tripathi, S. (ed.). Wildlife Organization, Forest & Environment Department, Government of Odisha.

Palei, H.S., T. Pradhan, H.K. Sahu & A.K. Nayak (2015). Estimating mammalian abundance using camera traps in the tropical forest of Similipal Tiger Reserve, Odisha, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 69: 181–188.

Palei, N.C., B.P. Rath & K. Singh (2020a). Mammalian diversity of Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, India: a camera trap prospective. e-planet 18(2): 145─157.

Palei, N.C., B.P. Rath, H.S. Palei & B.P. Acharya (2020b). Population status and activity pattern of Smooth-Coated Otter (Lutrogale perspicillata) in Bhitarkanika National Park, Odisha, eastern India. IUCN Otter specialist Group Bulletin 37(4): 205–211.

Palei, N.C., B.P. Rath, S. Kumar & H.S. Palei (2021). Occurrence and activity pattern of endangered Dhole (Cuon alpinus) in Debrigarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, India. Proceeding of Zoological Society 75: 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-021-00391-5

Ramakrishna, S.Z., P. Siddiqui, S. Sethy & S. Dash (2006). Faunal resources of Similipal Biosphere Reserve, Mayurbhanj, Orissa, Conservation Area Series 28. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 87 pp.

Rovero, F. & A.R. Marshall (2008). Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1011–1017.

Sathyakumar, S., T. Bashir, T. Bhattacharya & K. Poudyal (2011). Assessing mammal distribution and abundance in intricate eastern Himalayan habitats of Khangchendzonga, Sikkim, India. Mammalia 75: 258–269.

Sollmann, R., A. Mohamed, H. Samejima & A. Wiltin (2013). Risky business or simple solution-Relative abundance indices from camera-trapping. Biological Conservation 159: 405–412.

Tiwari, S.K., J.R.B. Alfred & S.K. Dutta (2002). Vertebrate fauna of Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary Orissa, Conservation Area Series 14. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 126 pp.