march 2015

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ERSTWHILE CLOSED AREAS OF JODHPUR DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN

TECHNICAL REPORT FUNDED BY WILDLIFE CONSERVATION TRUST (WCT) THROUGH RPACS

MARCH 2015

PROJECT ADVISORS 

DR. G.V. REDDY, APCCF (PF&C), DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN



MR. M. S. RATHORE, DCF (WL), JODHPUR, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

PROJECT FUNDED BY WILDLIFE CONSERVATION TRUST (WCT), MUMBAI THROUGH RAJASTHAN PROTECTED AREAS CONSERVATION SOCIETY (RPACS), JAIPUR

WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS IN SURVEY TEAM 

MR. SUBHADEEP BHATTACHARJEE (PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR)



MRS. ZAARA KIDWAI



MR. SANTOSH BHATTARAI



MR. HEMANT BAJPAI

PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED WITH ECOLOGICAL SURVEY FROM FOREST DEPARTMENT, JODHPUR (WILDLIFE WING) Kishan Singh Arha (Range Officer), Sagar Ram Bishnoi, Praveen Kumar, Kaluram Bishnoi, Bhagirath Latiyal, Ramkaran Jat, Shravan Kumar, Hariram Jat, Sajjan Singh, Bhuraram Bishnoi, Babulal Jat, Bachan Singh, Lal Bharti, Ganga Singh, Tej Singh and Prakash Sirwi

CITATION Bhattacharjee, S., Kidwai, Z., Bhattarai, S., Bajpai, H., Rathore, M.S. and Reddy, G.V. 2015. Ecological assessment of the erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur district, Rajasthan. Technical report, March 2015, submitted to Department of Forests, Government of Rajasthan. pp – 87.

CONTENTS PAGE NO ii

CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

iv

LIST OF ANNEXURE

vi

ACKNOWLEGEMENT

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix - xiii

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1-5 2. OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................. 6 3. STUDY AREA................................................................................................. 7 - 12 4. METHODOLOGY......................................................................................... 13 – 21 5. RESULTS......................................................................................................... 22 – 60 6. DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 61 – 68 7. LITERATURE CITED.................................................................................... 69 – 71 8. ANNEXURE.................................................................................................... 72 – 87

ii

LIST OF TABLES Table no.

Details

Page no.

1

Location, geographical area and habitat type of all the erstwhile closed areas in Rajasthan state

3

2

The approximate geographical areas of the six erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur district

7

3

Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Guda Bishnoiyan – Fitkashni of Jodhpur district

27

4

Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Sathin of Jodhpur district

28

5

Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Jamba of Jodhpur district

29

6

Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Lohawat of Jodhpur district

30

7

Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Dechu of Jodhpur district

31

8

Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Doli-Dhawa of Jodhpur district

32

9

Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in all erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

33

10

Estimated tree density on 10m x 10m quadrat at every 200m interval on each line transect in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

46

11

Estimated shrub density on 5m x 5m quadrat at every 200m interval on each line transect in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

47

12

Estimated species richness and diversity index for the tree layers analyzed by program Estimate S in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

48

13

Estimated species richness and diversity index for the shrub layers analyzed by program Estimate S in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

48

14

Estimated importance value index (IVI) for the tree layers analyzed by program Estimate S across all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

49

15

Official census results (water hole count) of wildlife carried out by the wildlife division of Jodhpur district during last 20 years

67

16

Official records of the rescued injured wildlife (mainly herbivores) and their subsequent fate after treatment by the wildlife division of Jodhpur district during last seven years

68

iii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure no.

Details

Page no.

1

The geographical locations of the six erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur district

8

2

The locations of line transects laid and walked in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

14

3

Comparative individual densities (Di ± SE) of different mammalian herbivores (wild and domestic) across different study sites and overall study area

26

4

Detection probability curve of blackbuck generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during JanuaryFebruary 2015.

34

5

Detection probability curve of chinkara generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015.

34

6

Detection probability curve of nilgai generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015.

35

7

Detection probability curve of peafowl generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015.

35

8

Detection probability curve of grey francolin generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015.

36

9

Detection probability curve of domestic buffalo generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015.

36

10

Detection probability curve of cattle generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015.

37

11

Detection probability curve of domestic goat generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015.

37

12

Detection probability curve of sheep generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015.

38

iv

13

Detection probability curve of camel generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015.

38

14

Distribution map of blackbuck as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

39

15

Distribution map of chinkara as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

40

16

Distribution map of nilgai as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

41

17

Distribution map of peafowl as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

42

18

Distribution map of grey francolin as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

43

19

Distribution map of domestic livestock as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

44

20

Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of status of oran across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

55

21

Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of status of wildlife across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

55

22

Estimated percentage response pattern on the reasons of wildlife depletion across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

56

23

Estimated percentage response pattern on the reasons of wildlife rejuvenation across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

56

Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of crop-raiding by wild herbivores across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

57

25

Estimated percentage response pattern on the legal status of erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur

57

26

Estimated percentage response pattern on the decline of major wildlife species across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

58

27

Estimated percentage response pattern on the major problematic wildlife species across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

58

28

Estimated percentage response pattern on the reaction time in wildlife rescue across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

59

29

Estimated percentage response pattern on the initiatives of eco-tourism in community conservation areas across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

59

30

Estimated percentage response pattern on the relationship between forest department and local community across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

60

24

v

LIST OF ANNEXURE

S. No.

Anexxure no.

1

I

Map 1. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Banks)

72

2

I

Map 2. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Electricity structures)

72

3

I

Map 3. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Forest Department structures)

73

4

I

Map 4. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Health Facilities)

73

5

I

Map 5. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Panchayat Facilities)

74

6

I

Map 6. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Police stations)

74

7

I

Map 7. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Post Offices)

75

8

I

Map 8. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Railway station)

75

9

I

Map 9. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Religious places)

76

10

I

11

I

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

II II II II II II II II II

Details

Map 10. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Education facilities) Map 11. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (water sources) Plate 1. Bachelor herd of Black buck at Dhawa Plate 2. Female black buck at a water body in Guda Plate 3. Chinkara female with young ones at Sathin Plate 4. Male Chinkara in Bhakari Lohawat Plate 5. Nilgai herd spotted at Dhawa Plate 6. Female Nilgai in Dechu Plate 7. Pigs spotted at Dhawa Plate 8. Single Pig in Sathin Plate 9. Desert fox in Jamba

vi

Page no.

76 77 78 78 78 78 79 79 79 79 80

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

II II II II II II II II II II

31

II

32

II

33

II

34

II

35

II

36 37 38 39

II II II II

40

III

41

III

42

III

43

III

Plate 10. Desert fox in Sathin Plate 11. Golden jackal in Fitkashini Guda Plate 12. Golden jackal in Dhawa Plate 13. Desert gerbil in Dechu Plate 14. Desert gerbil Dhawa Plate 15. Demoiselle crane at a water body near Guda Plate 16. Long-legged buzzard spotted at Sathin Plate 17. Black crowned sparrow lark at Lohawat Plate 18. Lesser flamingo at Dhawa Plate 19. Shikra spotted in Lohawat Plate 20. Cinereous vulture and Eurasian griffon in Jamba

80 80 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 81

Plate 21. Bhakad (hills) of Phinch village in Dhawa Closed area Plate 22. Rohida habitat (Tecomella undulata) near Chichadli village in Dhawa Closed area Plate 23. Hilly habitat near Rathkuria village in Sathin Closed area

82

Plate 24. Oran (Community land) of Rudekli village in Guda Closed area Plate 24. Questionnaire survey in Dhawa Plate 25. Questionnaire survey in Jamba Plate 26. Questionnaire survey in Guda Plate 27. Questionnaire survey in Sathin Data Sheet for Distance Sampling of Prey Species on Line transect (Data sheet no: 01 / Closed areas / GOR) Vegetation and disturbance data sheet on a quadrat of 10M x 10M at every 200M of each line transect (Data sheet no: 02 / Closed areas / GOR) Questionnaire Survey to assess Ecological Status of the erstwhile Closed Areas of the district of Jodhpur, Rajasthan (To be carried out among 2% population of each village) Factual data sheet for GPS locations and descriptions of the geographical features in each village of Closed areas in Jodhpur (Data Sheet no: 03 / Closed areas / GOR)

vii

81

82 82 82 83 83 83 83 84 85

86

87

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This project was financially supported by Wildlife Conservation Trust (WCT), Mumbai through Rajasthan Protected Area Conservation Society (RPACS), Jaipur, Rajasthan for which we are highly indebted and thankful. As an organization, WCT has shown great interest in conservation of wildlife which are surviving outside protected areas (PAs) as well such as in the erstwhile closed areas of Rajasthan. We greatly appreciate such involvement and initiatives from WCT. We express sincere gratitude to both the project advisors Dr. G.V. Reddy, APCCF (PF&C) and Mr. M.S. Rathore, D.C.F. Jodhpur (WL) for guiding and helping us at every stage of the project. We hereby also thank Dr. G.S. Bhardwaj, CCF Jodhpur (WL) for his cooperation to complete the work conveniently. We are thankful to Mr. Sangram Singh Katihar, DFO and Mr. Bhagwan Singh, ACF for their encouragement to this project. Mr. Kishan Singh Arha, Range Officer, Jodhpur (WL) is especially thanked for all his efforts to organize the logistic support to conduct this study successfully. We are also grateful to Dr. Mrs. Fatima Sultana, Coordinator, Department of Wildlife Science, University of Kota, Kota for sharing the sampling equipment to facilitate the field data collection. All the front line staff of Jodhpur (WL) division and their family members who helped us in this study are also heartily thanked for their great hospitality. Finally, we earnestly thank all our family members and friends who support us in every moment and always sacrifice their happiness by letting us work for wildlife conservation staying continuously in remote areas.

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the field of wildlife research, conservation and management practices, protected areas (PAs) are thought to be the cornerstone of all these activities. The protected areas in India consist of four categories: National Parks (NP) and Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLS) are the two major categories while Community Conservation Reserves (CCR) and Conservation Reserves (CR) are the two newly created categories. Rajasthan state has two National Parks (Keoladeo and Ranthambhore), 25 Wildlife Sanctuaries and four Conservation Reserves covering total 9485.46 sq. km of land which is roughly about 29% of total forest area or about 2.77% of geographical land under protected areas. The distribution of these protected areas is rather skewed, most of them are confined to east of Aravalli Hill range with exception of Desert National Park (Jaisalmer) and Tal Chhapper (Churu) on the western side of the state. Until 2002 amendment of Wildlife Protection Act (WPA 1972), Rajasthan had a unique category of protected area viz. Closed Area (CA). The closed areas were wildlife rich areas, declared under section 37 of WPA 1972 to provide protection to mega-fauna of that place during their breeding season. During 1980’s Rajasthan state government had notified about 14,689.71 sq. km of geographical land by marking 33 Closed Areas (CA) in 17 districts to forbid hunting during the breeding season of the wild ungulates. Out of these 33 CAs, 25 are located in the western part of Rajasthan in contrary to the locations of the conventional PAs which are mostly confined to eastern part of the state.

ix

There were six closed areas situated in Jodhpur district such as Guda Bishnoiyan Fitkashni, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa which cover 98 villages in total. The 2002 WPA amendment, prohibited hunting throughout the country irrespective of the season, thus rendering section 37 redundant which was subsequently repealed. Along with the lost legal status, these areas are data deficient on conservation values, scientifically estimated population parameters of major wildlife species with no proper assessment of perception of the local communities towards conservation initiatives. Therefore, it was urgent to understand ecological status of these closed areas, so that efforts can be delivered to convert potential closed areas into CR or CCR. The present study is

a preliminary scientific base line survey conducted in short period (two

months) to understand the abundance, distribution of the herbivores (wild and domestic) using distance sampling based line transects, vegetation quadrats to evaluate their habitat conditions and questionnaire surveys to assess the perception of local communities towards wildlife conservation and management strategies. A total effort of 1461 km on 130 line transects resulting in a total of 390 walks or temporal replicates was delivered to estimate the abundance of prey species (wild and domestic). Simultaneously 2515 habitat plots were also sampled to estimate the density, diversity, richness and dominance of the vegetation layers (tree and shrub layers). In total, 13 potential prey species were recorded on line transects. These were four wild

x

ungulate species (blackbuck, chinkara, nilgai and wild pig), two small mammal (Indian rufous tailed hare and Indian desert hare), five domestic livestock (cattle, buffalo, goat, sheep and Indian camel) and two birds (peafowl and grey francolin). We have also recorded the information on four wild canid species such as Indian grey wolf, golden jackal, Indian fox and desert fox during the transect walks. Chinkara was estimated as most abundant with highest density (Di ± SE) as 7.51 ± 0.96 individuals km-2 and an abundance of 29, 070 ± 3716 individuals for the entire study area (3870.93 km2). Similarly, the individual density (Di ± SE) with an individual abundance (N) for the entire study area were estimated as 2.08 ± 0.64 km-2; 8052 ± 2477 and 2.11 ± 0.41 km-2; 8167 ± 1587 for blackbuck and nilgai respectively. The estimated individual density (Di ± SE) summated for all the domestic livestock (cattle, buffalo, goat, sheep and camel) for overall study area was much higher as 95 km-2 with an estimated abundance (N) of nearly 3, 66, 197 individuals.

The density of tree and shrub layer in the study area is ecologically very low due to the aridity. A total of 16 species of trees and 13 species of shrubs were recorded during the vegetation sampling across the entire study area. The estimated mean densities were 50.26 ± 9.96 SE ha-1 and 343.88 ± 10.48 SE ha-1 for tree and shrub layer respectively while the mean diversity value was found to be higher for trees (18.3 ± 0.003 SE) compared to shrubs (13.6 ± 0.005 SE). The mean richness of tree and shrub layers were estimated as 16 ± 0.008 SE and 13 ± 0.014 SE respectively. Prosopis cineraria was found with highest

xi

IVI value (96.84) for the entire study area whereas for Balanites roxburghii, the IVI value came out to be the lowest (0.17).

The exact geographic boundaries of all the 98 villages which constituted the six erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur were not available with the forest department during their notification period in early 1980’s. Therefore, during this survey we recorded the latitude and longitude of different important landmarks from all the villages to prepare GIS maps with each geographical landmark recorded across the entire study area.

A total of 3366 people of age above 18 years from 2470 households were interviewed of which 2984 (88.7%) were male and 382 (11.3%) were female respondents. More than 60% respondents in the entire study area opined that the oran (community land) around their villages became degraded than past. Similarly around 70% interviewees from the entire study area replied that status of wildlife abundance got deteriorated during the past decade when 57% of the total interviewees blamed illegal hunting of the wildlife as the main reason for such deterioration. Habitat destruction, landscape fragmentation due to agricultural advancements and occasional accidents were the other reasons stated by rest of the people. In response to the issue of crop-raiding incidences by the wild herbivores, 88.5% interviewees expressed their disappointment over it as a nuisance. Forty two percent of the total interviewees reported Indian grey wolf missing from their localities during the last decade while 40% respondents described vultures as

xii

the most susceptible species towards local extinction. Overall 42.8% respondents replied pigs as most malicious animal while 38% reported nilgai as most problematical animal towards crop production. More than 50% interviewees in the entire study area opposed the ideas of eco-tourism initiatives as they feared that such activities might take away the grazing land of their domestic livestock while around 31% of the total respondents had agreed and welcome such opportunities to increase their livelihood options. Majority (around 57%) of the respondents across the entire study area expressed their dissatisfaction regarding their relation with forest department stating that they did not have any interactions with the local forest department authorities.

Therefore, the forest department should organize periodic conservation awareness camps involving all the target groups (adult male, students and ladies) from the local communities and start dialogue process with them to conserve the potential habitats (community lands) and the existing wildlife under proper legal framework of CR or CCR. Recruitment of more personnel should be carried out to rectify the inadequacy of front line staff in administrative system. The rural areas in this district are getting converted to urban colonies at a fast pace and is affecting the survival of wild ungulates in these erstwhile closed areas. Thus, a detailed long term follow up study has to be carried out to understand the effect of habitat parameters and development projects on the desert ecosystem. Finally site specific action plans should be designed to convert the potential habitats to either CR or CCR category to protect wildlife in those areas.

xiii

1. INTRODUCTION Despite unique biodiversity values and conservation oriented traditional agro-pastoral livelihoods, natural habitats and wildlife species of arid landscape in western India are facing imminent risk due to our neglect, societal obstinacy and limitations in management practices. In the field of wildlife conservation and management practices, protected areas (PAs) are thought to be the cornerstone of conservation. The protected areas in India consist of four categories: National Parks (NP) and Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLS) are the two major categories while Community Conservation Reserves (CCR) and Conservation Reserves (CR) are the two newly created categories. But it is often anecdotally referred that more wildlife exists outside the protected areas. Owing to small size, the existing protected areas are not fully capable of protecting all biodiversity and wildlife. IUCN 2013 guidelines on “Identification and gap analysis of key biodiversity area targets for comprehensive protected area system” propose to include all important bird, plant and biodiversity areas to reduce the conservation gaps. Rajasthan, the largest State in India has about 32,700 sq. km (9.56%) of geographical land under forests. The natural forests in Rajasthan are primarily dry deciduous forests and are mostly confined to areas east of Aravalli. Rajasthan has two National Parks (Keoladeo and Ranthambhore), 25 Wildlife Sanctuaries and four Conservation Reserves with 9485.46 sq. km of land which is roughly about 29% of forest area or about 2.77% of geographical land under protected areas. The distribution of these protected areas is 1|P a g e

Introduction rather skewed, most of them are confined to east of Aravalli Hill range with exception of Desert National Park (Jaisalmer) and Tal Chhapper (Churu) on the western side of the state. These protected areas are last surviving homes for dry deciduous forests regions of India which include major species like tiger, leopard, sloth bear, chital, sambar, chinkara, black Buck etc. Until 2002 amendment of Wildlife Protection Act (WPA 1972), Rajasthan had a unique category of protected area viz. Closed Area (CA). The closed areas were wildlife rich areas, declared under section 37 of WPA 1972 to provide protection to mega-fauna of that place during their breeding season. During 1980’s Rajasthan state government had notified about 14,689.71 sq. km of geographical land by marking 33 Closed Areas (CA) (table 1) to forbid hunting during the breeding season of the wild ungulates especially blackbuck and chinkara. These erstwhile CAs in Rajasthan State were situated in 17 districts out of 33 districts. The distribution of these CAs was not uniform. In district Jodhpur there are seven closed areas, five in Bikaner district and about three to one such areas are located in other districts. Rajasthan Forest Department used to protect these notified areas against shooting and hunting of wildlife, which were otherwise open to public for hunting during the rest of the year. The 2002 WPA amendment, prohibited hunting throughout the country irrespective of the season, thus rendering section 37 redundant which was subsequently repealed.

2|Page

Introduction Table 1. Location, geographical area and habitat type of all the erstwhile closed areas in Rajasthan state Sl. No.

Name of Area

District

Area (km2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Tilora Gagwana Sonkhalia Barrod Jodia Dhorimanna Deshnok Doytra Jodvir Mukam Bajoo Kanak Sagar Menal Sawantsar Sagar Santhal Sagar Mehlan Ram Devra Ujala Sanchore Doli Fitkashni Sathin Gudha Bishnoi Dechu Jamberserwerji Lohawat Sorsan Jaroda Rotu Jawai Ram Qualji Ranipura Bagdaraha

Ajmer Ajmer Ajmer Alwar Alwar Barmer Bikaner Bikaner Bikaner Bikaner Bikaner Bundi Chittorgarh Churu Jaipur Jaipur Jaisalmer Jaisalmer Jalore Jodhpur Jodhpur Jodhpur Jodhpur Jodhpur Jodhpur Jodhpur Kota Nagaur Nagaur Pali Sawai Madhopur Tonk Udaipur

1.42 225 526.81 2.36 30 680.17 25.17 50.19 75.84 168.82 210 8 107.96 70.19 3 150 3000 3000 1813.12 424.76 5.7 242.86 418.88 666.18 870.24 1242.31 100 30 586.2 5 37.8 87.77 3.42

Type of habitat Desert Desert Desert Non Desert Non Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Non Desert Non Desert Desert Non Desert Non Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Desert Non Desert Desert Desert Desert Non Desert Non Desert Non Desert

3|Page

Introduction Western part of the Rajasthan is arid zone with vast grass lands. The arid zone harbors varied biodiversity despite harsh climatic conditions and low rainfall, due to the traditional contribution of the local community and their cultural beliefs. The geographical area under closed area category was much more than all PAs in the state. Thus, the closed areas can be developed as safe haven for wildlife outside formally declared protected area system in Rajasthan. Out of the 33 CAs, 25 are located in the western part of Rajasthan in contrary to the locations of the conventional PAs which are mostly confined to eastern part of the state. There were six closed areas situated in Jodhpur district such as Guda Bishnoiyan - Fitkashni, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa which cover 98 villages in total. A few years ago, four villages of DoliDhawa closed area were re-classified to the district administration of Barmer. However, with the 2002 WPA amendment, the closed areas had lost their legal significance and relegated to history though there were efforts to convert these closed areas into community conserved reserves or conservation reserves. Historically and ecologically the arid agro-grass habitats of Jodhpur district had supported many wildlife species such as blackbuck Antilope cervicapra, chinkara Gazella bennettii, Indian grey wolf Canis lupus pallipes, desert fox Vulpes vulpes pusilla, Indian fox Vulpes bengalensis and Spiny-tailed Lizard Saara hardwickii which are data deficient and threatened (Dookia 2009; Dutta et al. 2014).

4|Page

Introduction This ecological survey aimed at generating information on population and habitat status of the wild herbivore species surviving in the crucial human dominated arid landscape referred as erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district in western Rajasthan. Official data and records available with the department do not provide details about conservation values, well documented maps of the closed areas, scientifically estimated population parameters of major wildlife species and perception of the local communities towards conservation initiatives. Therefore, there is urgent need to understand ecological status of these closed areas, so that efforts can be initiated to preserve these areas for the wildlife surviving in these wilderness areas and also to convert potential closed areas into community conservation reserves. So far, no study has been undertaken to evaluate biodiversity, ecology of large mammals in these landscapes which are outside protected areas (National park or Sanctuary). The CAs of Rajasthan has therefore great potential to become community conserved wildlife reserve (CCR) or conservation reserve (CR).

5|Page

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The present study was undertaken to pursue the following objectives  to estimate current status and distribution of wildlife and habitat conditions of the closed areas in Jodhpur district,  to mark the historical closed areas and currently potential areas for wildlife conservation and prepare maps,  to assess key problems and potentials of each of the closed areas in Jodhpur district,  to understand the perception of the local communities towards wildlife conservation and present management practices,  to evaluate potentials for converting these CA to CCA or CR depending on the site suitability and  to recommend proper management interventions according to the respective conservation values of the closed areas in Jodhpur district.

6|Page

3. STUDY AREA The present study was carried out in six erstwhile closed areas viz. “Guda Bishnoiyan and Fitkashni, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu-Thadiya and Doli-Dhawa” located in Jodhpur and Barmer districts of Rajasthan. These closed areas were situated around 98 villages, out of which 94 villages are located in Jodhpur district and rest four are situated in Barmer district. The details of the approximate geographical areas and locations of all these closed areas are shown in Table 2 and figure 1. Table 2. The approximate geographical areas of the six erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur district

Approximate Sl. No.

Name of the Closed Area (CA)

District

geographical area as per notification (in km2)

1

Guda Bishnoiyan and Fitkashni

Jodhpur

424.58

2

Sathin

Jodhpur

242.86

3

Jamba

Jodhpur

870.24

4

Lohawat

Jodhpur

1242.31

5

Dechu-Thadiya

Jodhpur

666.18

6

Doli-Dhawa Total geographical area

Jodhpur and Barmer

424.76 3870.93

7|P a g e

Study area Figure 1. The geographical locations of the six erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur district

The entire study area falls in Desert Biogeographic Zone (Rodgers et al. 2002). Total geographical area of Jodhpur district is 22, 850 sq.km and lies between N 26.00o to 27.620 and E 72.92o to 73.87o. This district is situated at an altitude between 250 to 300 meters above mean sea level. Jodhpur forest division has 201.37 sq. km forest areas, which represents nearly 1% of the total geographical area of the district. Jodhpur district has ten sub-districts or tehsils as per revenue administration such as Jodhpur, Osian, Luni, 8|Page

Study area Shergarh, Bilada, Bhopalgarh, Phalodi, Baap, Balesar and Pipar city and ten Panchayat Samities such as Mandoor, Luni, bilada, Bhopal garh, Osion, Shergarh, Balesar, Phalodi, Baap and Babari.

The climate is characterized by very hot summer (temperature rising up to 50 oC), relatively cold winter (temperature dropping below 0oC), and large diurnal temperature range (Sikka 1997). Water is a limiting factor in this district. From the available records of all tehsils the annual average rainfall of last ten years is 365 mm which is 22 percent more than the average annual rainfall of last five decades which was 300.5 mm. This total rainfall is spread over around 17 rain days. Rainfall pattern is scarce and erratic, at mean annual quanta of 100-500 mm that decreases from east to west (Pandeya et al. 1977). The Natural rain water drainage of eastern plan lands goes to the Luni and Bandi seasonal rivers. There is no water shed having clear ridge line except the parts of Tiwari and Balesar hills.

In many places in the district tube wells and hand pumps have been installed to attain the drinking water requirement and at places the ground water is also used for irrigation purpose. Most of the villages have “Nadi and Talav” as per the traditional source of water which cater the water requirement of human and animal population but the increasing human and livestock population pressure and encroachments are becoming the major constraint to this water deprived state . In the recent past the Rajiv

9|Page

Study area Gandhi Lift Canal which comes from 1050 RD of Indira Gandhi Canal and reaches Jodhpur via Phalodi, discharges its water into Kaylana and Takhat Sagar lakes. Due to this water the ground water table of the surrounding areas has raised to a great extend and the drinking water problem of the Jodhpur city has been solved (Working plan Jodhpur 2013-14 to 2022-23).

Broad topographical features are gravel plains, rocky hillocks, sand-soil mix, and sand dunes (Ramesh and Ishwar 2008). In Jodhpur district mainly sedimentary rocks such as are found in the hilly areas. Some hills have Besalt and Granite rocks. Limestone rocks are also present in between Pipar to Borunda and Verna hilly areas. Sand stone is another important sedimentary rock which extends from Jodhpur to Mandore to Balesar – Tiwari (Working plan Jodhpur 2013-14 to 2022-23).

The vegetation found in Jodhpur district is of Thorny Scrub type, characterized by open woodland dominated by khejri (Prosopis cineraria), jaal (Salvadora Persica), ber (Zizyphus mauritiana), dhaak (Butea monosperma), desi babul (Acacial nilotica), khumta (Acacia senegal), neem (Azadirachta indica), Israeli babul (Acacia tortilis) and roheda (Tecomella undulata) trees. The scrublands are dominated by Capparis decidua, Zizyphus nummularia, Salvadora, Calligonum, Leptadenia and Aerva shrubs and grasslands dominated by dhaman (Cenchrus ciliaris), lapala (Aristida depressa), baru (Sorghum halopense), sewan (Lasisurus sindicus), Crotalaria and Sewan Lasiurus. In the stony areas thor species

10 | P a g e

Study area (Euphorbia spp.) are found. The pure forest of khejri, jaal, babul, khumta and neem etc. have almost being denuded and now these species are mainly found in scattered position mixed with Prosopis juliflora (Working plan Jodhpur, 2013-14 to 2022-23).

Jodhpur district is very rich in wildlife. Here wildlife species such as chinkara (Gazella bennettii), blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelous), Indian grey wolf (Canis lupus pallipes), hyena (Hyena hyena), desert cat (Felis silvestris), desert fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla), Indian fox (Vulpes bengalensis), golden jackal (Canis aureus), wild pig (Sus scrofa), mongoose (Herpestes spp.) etc can be seen not only in forest areas but also in revenue and wastelands. Apart from the above mammalian species, important bird species such as macqueen’s bustard Chlamydotis macqueenii, cream-coloured courser Cursorius cursor, sandgrouses Pterocles spp., larks, peafowl, francolins, vultures and other raptors etc. are also found in this district. In winter season the migratory bird demoiselle crane (Anthropoides virgo, local name kuranja) can also be seen near water points like Kheechan. Spiny-tailed lizard (Saara hardwickii) is another important fauna of this area. Apart from these wild species, large populations of domestic livestock (cattle Bos indicus, buffalo Bubalus bubalis, goat Capra aegagrus hircus, sheep Ovis aries, Indian camel Camelus dromedaries and donkey Equus africanus asinus) are also found in this district (Working plan Jodhpur 2013-14 to 2022-23).

11 | P a g e

Study area Jodhpur district has mainly 2 types of geographical land - Easterly dry plane land and Western desert area. Easterly dry plane land - Mandor, Luni, Bilada and Bhopal garh area lies mainly in the catchment of Bandi and Luni seasonal rivers. This part of land has slightly sandy, loom or heavy loamy grounds which has 30 cm to 120 cm soil depth with slightly stony thin layer. Major native species of this land are khejri, roheda and kheep. Prosopis juliflora is also found in this area as one of the dominating exotic species. Western desert area - Western desert areas of the district mainly comprise of the regions of Osion, Balesar, Shergarh, Phalodi and Baap. Major native species of this land are similar to eastern part but abundance and distribution of Prosopis juliflora in this area is greatly observed than the previous area. Most of the areas are sandy and due to sand storms permanent / temporary sand dunes used to get developed. The western desert area is inhabited by 85 people km-2 who largely stay in small villages and dhanis (hamlets with clusters of 2-8 huts) and depend on pastoralism and dry farming for livelihoods.

The present study was performed by four field survey teams constituted with four qualified wildlife biologists and well trained front line personnel of Jodhpur forest department (wildlife wing) during January 2015 to February 2015.

12 | P a g e

4. METHODOLOGY 4.1 Estimation of current status and distribution of wildlife and habitat conditions of the closed areas in Jodhpur Wild and domestic herbivore species availability in the present study was estimated by line transect method under distance sampling technique (Burnham et al. 1980). This method had been widely applied to estimate densities of large herbivore species (mainly ungulates) in different forests in Indian subcontinent (Karanth and Sunquist 1995; Khan et al. 1996; Stoen and Wegge 1996; Biswas and Sankar 2002; Bagchi et al. 2003; Harihar et al. 2009; Bhattacharjee 2014).

All the erstwhile closed areas were

divided into 5km x 5km (25 km2) grid layer to follow systematic sampling procedure. We tried to lay at least one line transect in one grid but our efforts were limited by logistic constraints in desert landscape and also in the areas fenced by private land owners. Therefore, we tried to sample the maximum area possible under limited logistic provisions. A total of 130 line transects of length varying from 2.5 to 4 km. were walked three times in the morning as well as in the afternoon time (at least once in the morning and twice in the afternoon or vice versa) by four teams of qualified wildlife biologists and well trained forest department staff during the study period (January 2015 to February 2015) (Figure 2). The total transects length in the entire study area was 488.5 km. For each line transect, the beginning and end point coordinates (Latitude and Longitude) were recorded by a handheld GARMIN-72 Global Positioning System. The 13|P a g e

Methodology bearings of each of the line transect were also measured using look through magnetic compass (Suunto KB 20). The broad vegetation types and terrain types in which each transect was laid, were also recorded. Record was kept for all wild ungulates, domestic livestock, hare and two birds such as peafowl and grey francolin that were seen during the walk. Figure 2. The locations of line transects laid and walked in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

14 | P a g e

Methodology On every walk the following information were noted: Species identity: Data on each species was collected separately on each transect walk. Group size: An individual animal or more than one animal of the same species within 30 m to each other were considered to be a single group. Age and sex composition: Whenever any individual or group was observed the broad age category and gender of the individuals comprising that group were also collected. Radial distance: Bushnell made Laser Range Finder was used to measure the radial distance of the animal. In case of a herd, distance to the centre of the herd was recorded. Sighting angle: Magnetic look through compass (Suunto KB 20) was used to find the bearing of the animal seen with respect to the transect line from the initial point of observation. In case of the herd, the angle between the point of the observation and the centre of herd was recorded. Program DISTANCE 6.0 (Thomas et al. 2009) was used to estimate the density of prey species. The data after imported into DISTANCE 6.0 was primarily examined by assigning very small intervals to the perpendicular distance classes. Next on the basis of the general distribution of the data, suitable cut points were chosen to optimize the fit of the model. The best model was selected on the basis of the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) (Burnham et al. 1980; Buckland et al. 1993). The number of individuals in each species per unit area multiplied by the average weight for the species gives an estimate of the biomass for the area (Schaller 1967). In 15 | P a g e

Methodology the present study, the biomass estimation was done by multiplying the density (density/km2) of each prey species in the respective closed areas by their average body weight (Sankar and Johnsingh 2002; Bhattacharjee 2014). The following assumptions were made for the line transect sampling in the present study: 1. The animals were randomly and independently distributed in the study area 2. The sighting of one animal was independent of the sighting of another. 3. No animal was counted more than once. 4. Animals were fixed at the initial sighting position and did not move before being counted and distance to them from the transect being measured. 5. The response behaviors of the prey population as a whole did not substantially change in the course of walking a line transect. 6. The individuals were homogeneous with regard to their responsive behavior, regardless of sex, age etc. 7. The probability of an animal being seen , given that it was a right angle distance y from the line transect path (irrespective of which side of path it is on ) , was a simple function g(y) , say of y , such that g(0) =1( i.e. probability 1 of seeing an animal on the path ). 8. Animals directly on the line were never being missed. 9. Distances and angles were always measured accurately. (After Seber 1982; Burnham et al. 1980; Buckland et al. 2001) 16 | P a g e

Methodology In Jodhpur, due to its high aridity in nature, distribution of prey species could not be treated as random especially in summer when the animals tend to concentrate around water sources. However by placing the line transects randomly in every representative landuse-landcover and terrain types in all the erstwhile closed areas, the first assumption was not violated as well as we chose the winter season as sampling period when animals seem to be randomly distributed irrespective of water availability. There was very little chance of violating the other four assumptions in Jodhpur where substantially open habitat conditions permit easy detection and accurate measurement of data. These transects were walked three times in total covering both early morning time from 700 hours to 1030 hours and also at least once in the afternoon from 1430 hours to 1800 hours to avoid any temporal bias in detection of animals due to their activity patterns and also to reduce the error in estimating the herbivore abundance. GPS locations of each sighting was also recorded to subsequently prepare an animal distribution map for each species sighted and recorded during the transect walks. Vegetation sampling: To obtain the density, diversity and dominance parameters of the vegetation layers (trees and shrubs), at each 200 m point on each line transects, 10m x 10m and 5m x 5m quadrats were laid to enumerate the tree and shrub layer respectively (Cox 1990). Sampling with quadrats (plots of a standard size) can be used for most plant communities (Cox 1990). A quadrat delimits an area in which vegetation cover can be estimated, plants counted, or species listed. Therefore, at each 10m x 10m quadrat we 17 | P a g e

Methodology recorded the tree species and the no. of individuals present within that area. At the same time GBH of all the individual trees recorded to estimate the species dominance (Kent and Coker 1992). Similarly, within the 5m x 5m quadrat shrubs are counted and their specific identity was noted down. Thus, a total of 2515 sample quadrat plots were laid in all the erstwhile closed areas to estimate the above mentioned parameters for the evaluation of density, diversity and dominance of trees as well as density and diversity of shrubs in Jodhpur district. Sobs richness is the total number of species observed in a sample, or in a set of samples. On the other hand, diversity of species is calculated by the formula (Chao 1984; Colwell and Coddington 1994):

Where “Sobs” is the number of species in the sample, F1 is the number of singletons (i.e., the number of species with only a single occurrence in the sample) and F2 is the number of doubletons (the number of species with exactly two occurrences in the sample). For calculating dominance of trees and shrubs, density of trees and shrub species was calculated in per hectare. Dominance of a species is determined by the value of the basal cover. Finally importance value indexes (IVI) of each tree species were estimated (Curtis 1959) for the entire study area of Jodhpur district. In Quadrat Sampling, the following formulae were used to estimate the vegetation layers:

18 | P a g e

Methodology Density = Total no. of individuals of a particular species / total area sampled Relative Density = species density / total density for all species x 100 Frequency = no. of quadrats in which a particular species occur / total no. of quadrats sampled Relative Frequency = species frequency / total of frequency values for all species x 100 Dominance (Basal Area) = sum of the basal area of each tree of a species from all plots / the total area of all of the measured plots Relative Dominance = Basal area of a given species / the sum of the basal areas of all of the species x 100 Importance Value = Relative frequency + Relative density + Relative dominance for each species A software ‘EstimateSWin750’ (Colwell 1997) was used to estimate diversity and richness of trees and shrubs. 4.2 Marking of the historical closed areas and currently potential areas for wildlife conservation in GIS domain and preparation of maps

Geographical locations (latitude, longitude and altitude) of important landmarks (Government offices, hospital, schools, temples, water point etc.) and indications of habitat fragmentations such as major roads, railway tracks and barbed wire fencing around the agricultural fields were recorded using a handheld GARMIN-72 Global Positioning System. Later on, these locations were plotted on GIS (Geographical Information System) domain to prepare suitable layers of each landmark classes as well as fragmented habitats which were not available for the wild herbivores any more 19 | P a g e

Methodology causing discontinuation or fragmentation in the landscape. These maps would be helpful for identifying the threats arising in this district showing the lost habitats as well as remaining potential habits for the wildlife conservation. 4.3 Assessment of the key problems and potentials of each of the closed areas in Jodhpur district and understanding the perception of the local communities towards wildlife conservation and present management practices Socio-economic semi-structured questionnaire survey was carried out to assess the key problems and potentials of each of the closed areas in Jodhpur district and also to understand the perception of the local communities towards wildlife conservation and present management practices. Except two villages in Guda area which were entirely urbanized by Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA), Other 96 villages around all the six erstwhile closed areas were surveyed during the study period. Two percent of adult human population (age more than 18 years) from each village was interviewed with both open and closed ended questions to understand their perception towards wildlife conservation and related issues. From these interviews, the key problems and potentials of each of the closed areas were also tried to identify to help the management decisions. The questionnaire consisted of three main sections: basic demographic and socioeconomic information about the interviewed person; questions related to attitude towards present status of wildlife, forest and the earlier legal status of closed areas and questions related to perceptions towards the conservation measures to mitigate human20 | P a g e

Methodology wildlife conflict issues including their opinion on the present conflict management system. The response of the local communities about the conservation scenarios and management issues were binomially coded with 0 and 1. Thereafter, bootstrapping with fifty thousand iterations were also carried out for each component to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the mean of each response from the respondents using “boot” function of the software R (R Development Core Team 2006).

21 | P a g e

5. RESULTS 5.1 Estimation of current status and distribution of wildlife and habitat conditions of the closed areas in Jodhpur

A total of 130 line transects (spatial replicates of length ranging from 2.5 km to 4 km; figure 2) were walked three times in both morning and afternoon (at least once in the morning and twice in the afternoon or vice versa) to understand the status and distribution of the major herbivores (both wild and domestic) as well the habitat conditions were also evaluated using 10m x 10m quadrat plots for tree layer and 5m x 5m quadrat plots for shrub layers at every 200m interval on each line transect. The total effort on 130 line transects was 1461 km resulting in a total 390 walks or temporal replicates. Simultaneously 2515 habitat plots were also sampled to estimate the density, diversity, richness and dominance of the vegetation layers (tree and shrub layers). In total, 13 potential prey species were recorded on line transects. These were four wild ungulate species (blackbuck, chinkara, nilgai and wild pig), two small mammal (both Indian rufous tailed hare Lepus nigricollis ruficaudatus and Indian desert hare Lepus nigricollis dayanus) (Menon 2014), five domestic livestock (cattle, buffalo, goat, sheep and Indian camel) and two birds (peafowl Pavo cristatus and grey francolin Francolinus pondicerianus). We have also recorded the observations of wild carnivores during transect walks. Four wild canid species such as Indian grey wolf, golden jackal, Indian fox and desert fox were observed and recorded during the transect walk. Only a total of

22 |P a g e

Results three observations for each of wild pigs and hare could be recorded during the study and therefore these three species could not be included in distance sampling protocol due to inadequacy of information to estimate their population parameters. The details of the population estimation results for eight mammalian species and two avian species for each of the erstwhile closed area and also for the entire study area, such as the recorded total number of observations, estimated cluster size, group encounter rate and density of different prey species are given in tables 3 to table 9. Since cluster size is an ecological parameter for a particular species therefore detection function was kept identical for one individual species throughout all the erstwhile closed areas as well as for the entire study area which had similar habitat conditions and detectability profile. Out of six erstwhile closed areas, blackbuck was recorded in three places such as Guda Bishnoiyan – Fitkashni, Sathin and Doli-Dhawa. Nilgai was not directly seen on the line transects laid in Jamba closed area whereas their presence was confirmed in that area from their pellets and dung sites. Except this, nilgai was recorded on line transects in other five erstwhile closed areas. Chinkara, peafowl, grey francolin and other domestic livestock were observed on line transects in all the six erstwhile closed areas except no buffalo was seen in Jamba closed area. Among all the wild prey species, chinkara was estimated as most abundant with highest density (Di ± SE) as 7.51 ± 0.96 individual km -2 for the entire study area. The 23 | P a g e

Results mean cluster size estimated for chinkara was 4.93 and the best fitted detection function model selected was half normal with model adjustment of hermite polynomial-4. The individual densities (Di ± SE) of chinkara were estimated as 5.66 ± 1.19 km-2, 5.58 ± 1.47 km-2, 8.17 ± 2.00 km-2, 5.03 ± 1.22 km-2, 3.19 ± 1.54 km-2 and 13.80 ± 2.13 km-2 in the erstwhile closed areas such as Guda Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa respectively. The individual density (Di ± SE) of blackbuck for the entire study area was estimated as 2.08 ± 0.64 km-2 whereas it ranged from 1.70 ± 0.83 km-2 to 3.47 ± 1.35 km-2 to 5.95 ± 2.30 km-2 in the erstwhile closed areas such as Sathin, Guda Bishnoiyan and Doli-Dhawa respectively. The mean cluster size of blackbuck was estimated as 7.94 and the best fitted detection function for this species was uniform with the model adjustment term simple polynomial 2. The estimated individual density of nilgai for the overall study area was 2.11 ± 0.41 km-2 with region wise densities such as 2.47 ± 0.86 km-2, 4.97 ± 1.39 km-2, 1.14 ± 0.63 km-2, 1.18 ± 0.59 km-2 and 2.66 ± 0.74 km-2 estimated in Guda Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa respectively. Half normal was selected as best fitted detection model for nilgai with the estimated mean cluster size of 4.54 throughout the study area. The mean cluster size of peafowl was estimated as 5.65 throughout the study area whereas the best fitted detection model for this species was uniform with model adjustment term of cosine 1. The overall individual density (Di ± SE) of peafowl for the 24 | P a g e

Results entire study area was estimated as 3.35 ± 0.60 km-2 whereas the region wise estimated densities of the same were 4.78 ± 1.79 km-2, 4.18 ± 1.49 km-2, 0.27 ± 0.27 km-2, 0.76 ± 0.36 km-2, 3.51 ± 0.88 km-2 and 5.78 ± 1.47 km-2 in the erstwhile closed areas such as Guda Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa respectively. The individual densities (Di ± SE) of grey francolin were estimated for the overall study area as well as for all the six erstwhile closed areas such as Guda Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa as 3.42 ± 0.66 km-2, 5.66 ± 1.38 km-2, 6.73 ± 1.68 km-2, 0.81 ± 0.57 km-2, 3.18 ± 1.19 km-2, 4.93 ± 1.50 km-2 and 0.93 ± 0.57 km-2 respectively. Half normal was the best fitted detection model for grey francolin with the model adjustment term cosine 2 whereas the estimated mean cluster size for this species was 2.36. Except buffalo and camel, the overall estimated individual densities (Di ± SE) of other domestic livestock species (cattle, goat and sheep) were much higher in each closed area site as well as in the entire study area than the wild herbivores. The overall estimated individual densities (Di ± SE) of the domestic livestock species such as buffalo, cattle, goat, sheep and camel were 1.70 ± 0.44 km-2, 29.13 ± 2.19 km-2, 34.05 ± 3.26 km-2, 28.49 ± 4.02 km-2 and 1.18 ± 0.32 km-2 respectively. Half normal was selected as the best fitted detection model for all five domestic livestock species whereas for camel, cosine 2 was used as detection model adjustment term.

25 | P a g e

Results The available prey biomass density (both wild and domestic) was calculated as 8236.51 kg km-2, 8569.33 kg km-2, 7171.30 kg km-2, 7073.58 kg km-2, 8944.58 kg km-2, 8600.00 kg km-2, 8614.43 kg km-2 for the entire study area and the erstwhile closed areas such as Guda Bishnoiyan, Sathin, Jamba, Lohawat, Dechu and Doli-Dhawa respectively. Figure 3 shows comparative detail of estimated individual densities (Di ± SE) of all the major mammalian prey species during the study period region wise as well as for the entire study area. The estimated detection probability pattern curves for all the ten species (wild and domestic) during the study period were given in figure 4 to figure 13. The distribution all the wild prey species and domestic livestock across the entire study area during the study period are shown in figure 14 to figure 19. Figure 3. Comparative individual densities (Di ± SE) of different mammalian herbivores (wild and domestic) across different study sites and overall study area

26 | P a g e

Results Table 3. Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Guda Bishnoiyan – Fitkashni of Jodhpur district Category / Prey species

No. of spatial replicates (Line Transect) Total no of walk Effort (L) km Total no of observation Individual Density (Di) / km

Domestic Livestock

Blackbuck

Chinkara

Nilgai

Peafowl

Grey Francolin

Buffalo

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

Camel

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

202.5

202.5

202.5

202.5

202.5

202.5

202.5

202.5

202.5

202.5

17

45

17

18

14

24

73

10

12

4

3.47

5.66

2.47

4.78

5.66

6.40

28.36

9.17

18.41

0.95

1.35

1.19

0.86

1.79

1.38

1.60

3.34

2.82

5.62

0.45

121.45

67.92

444.60

16.25

1.53

1747.20

5104.80

206.33

460.25

399.00

38.76

20.97 3.71 - 8.63

3.50 - 9.18

0.44

1.29

37.44 2.27 10.09 0.85

24.36

1.62 - 7.44

34.94 1.23 4.96 0.54

2.40

25.12 3.91 10.47 1.26

11.78 22.36 35.97 3.00

30.77 4.93 17.05 0.49

30.54 9.96 34.02 0.54

47.87 0.38 2.39 0.11

0.16

0.27

0.19

0.31

0.54

0.26

0.32

0.15

0.16

0.05

2

Di Standard Error (± SE) 2

Biomass (kg / km ) Di Coefficient of variation (% CV) Di - 95% Confidence Interval Group Density (Ds) / km

Wild prey species

2

Ds Standard Error (± SE) Ds Coefficient of variation (% CV)

36.00

20.68

34.04

36.62

22.48

20.91

10.78

30.47

30.07

45.61

Cluster Size (Mean)

7.94

4.39

4.54

5.65

2.36

5.09

9.46

18.92

33.93

8.42

Standard Error (± SE)

1.14

0.15

0.36

0.44

0.22

0.71

0.45

0.80

1.80

1.22

Detection probability (p)

0.60

0.48

0.38

0.50

0.29

0.45

0.43

0.42

0.34

0.31

0.63

0.77

0.54

0.91

0.94

0.40

0.61

0.57

0.69

0.88

96.03

86.33

77.23

52.50

14.41

47.11

60.15

50.96

54.61

87.56

0.08

0.22

0.08

0.09

0.07

0.12

0.36

0.05

0.06

0.02

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Simple polynomial - 2

Hermite polynomial - 4

Cosine 1

Cosine - 2

2

Goodness of fit (chi - p) Effective Strip Width (ESW) (m) Group encounter rate / km Model Model adjustment term

Cosine - 2

27 | P a g e

Results Table 4. Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Sathin of Jodhpur district Wild prey species Category / Prey species No. of spatial replicates (Line Transect) Total no of walk Effort (L) km Total no of observation Individual Density (Di) / km

2


Biomass (kg / km ) Di Coefficient of variation (% CV) Di - 95% Confidence Interval 2

Group Density (Ds) / km Ds Standard Error (± SE) Ds Coefficient of variation (% CV) Cluster Size (Mean) Standard Error (± SE) Detection probability (p) 2 Goodness of fit (chi - p) Effective Strip Width (ESW) (m) Group encounter rate / km Model Model adjustment term

Domestic Livestock

Blackbuck

Chinkara

Nilgai

Peafowl

Grey Francolin

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

57 219 9 1.70 0.83 59.50 48.88

57 219 48 5.58 1.47 66.96 26.26

0.65 - 4.43

3.27 - 9.52

0.22 0.10 46.72 7.94 1.14 0.60 0.63 96.03 0.04

1.27 0.33 26.03 4.39 0.15 0.48 0.77 86.33 0.22

57 219 37 4.97 1.39 894.60 27.94 2.83 8.74 1.09 0.29 26.81 4.54 0.36 0.38 0.54 77.23 0.17

57 219 17 4.18 1.49 14.21 35.73 2.03 8.59 0.74 0.26 34.87 5.65 0.44 0.50 0.91 52.50 0.08

57 219 18 6.73 1.68 1.82 24.97 4.09 11.07 2.85 0.66 23.14 2.36 0.22 0.29 0.94 14.41 0.08

57 219 11 2.71 1.34 739.83 49.26 1.04 7.10 0.53 0.25 47.26 5.09 0.71 0.45 0.40 47.11 0.05

57 219 50 17.96 2.23 3232.80 12.41 13.95 23.13 1.90 0.22 11.46 9.46 0.45 0.43 0.61 60.15 0.23

57 219 49 41.53 7.08 934.43 17.05 29.29 58.90 2.20 0.36 16.51 18.92 0.80 0.42 0.57 50.96 0.22

57 219 32 45.39 11.03 1134.75 24.30 27.67 74.47 1.34 0.32 23.71 33.93 1.80 0.34 0.69 54.61 0.15

57 219 1 0.22 0.22 92.40 101.90 0.04 1.28 0.03 0.03 100.86 8.42 1.22 0.31 0.88 87.56 0.01

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal



Cosine -1

Cosine - 2

Buffalo

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

Camel

Cosine - 2

28 | P a g e

Results Table 5. Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Jamba of Jodhpur district Wild prey species Category / Prey species

Domestic Livestock

Blackbuck

Chinkara

Nilgai

Peafowl

Grey Francolin

Di Coefficient of variation (% CV)

17 51 202.5 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R.

17 51 202.5 65 8.17 2.00 98.04 24.46

17 51 202.5 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R.

Di - 95% Confidence Interval

N.R.

4.95 - 13.49

N.R.

Group Density (Ds) / km Ds Standard Error (± SE) Ds Coefficient of variation (% CV) Cluster Size (Mean) Standard Error (± SE) Detection probability (p) 2 Goodness of fit (chi - p) Effective Strip Width (ESW) (m) Group encounter rate / km

N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R.

1.86 0.45 24.21 4.39 0.15 0.48 0.77 86.33 0.32


17 51 202.5 1 0.27 0.27 0.92 100.38 0.05 1.56 0.05 0.05 100.07 5.65 0.44 0.50 0.91 52.50 0.01

17 51 202.5 2 0.81 0.57 0.22 69.89 0.21 3.05 0.34 0.24 69.26 2.36 0.22 0.29 0.94 14.41 0.01

Model

N.R.

Half normal

N.R.

Uniform

Half normal

N.R.

Model adjustment term

N.R.


N.R.

Cosine 1

Cosine - 2

N.R.


2


Biomass (kg / km )

2

Buffalo

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

Camel

17 51 202.5 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R.

17 51 202.5 68 26.42 5.23 4755.60 19.81 17.53 39.83 2.79 0.54 19.23 9.46 0.45 0.43 0.61 60.15 0.34

17 51 202.5 41 37.58 6.57 845.55 17.47 26.21 53.90 1.99 0.34 16.95 18.92 0.80 0.42 0.57 50.96 0.20

17 51 202.5 15 23.01 7.60 575.25 33.03 11.71 45.20 0.68 0.22 32.60 33.93 1.80 0.34 0.69 54.61 0.07

17 51 202.5 8 1.90 0.73 798.00 38.29 0.89 4.04 0.23 0.08 35.44 8.42 1.22 0.31 0.88 87.56 0.04

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R.

Cosine - 2

(N.R. – Not Recorded)

29 | P a g e

Results Table 6. Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Lohawat of Jodhpur district Wild prey species Category / Prey species

Domestic Livestock

Blackbuck

Chinkara

Nilgai

Peafowl

Grey Francolin


24 72 283.5 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R.

24 72 283.5 56 5.03 1.22 60.36 24.28


N.R.

3.08 - 8.20



1.14 0.28 24.03 4.39 0.15 0.48 0.77 86.33 0.20

24 72 283.5 11 1.14 0.63 205.20 55.07 0.40 3.30 0.25 0.14 54.50 4.54 0.36 0.38 0.54 77.23 0.04

24 72 283.5 4 0.76 0.36 2.58 47.97 0.30 1.94 0.13 0.06 47.33 5.65 0.44 0.50 0.91 52.50 0.01

24 72 283.5 11 3.18 1.19 0.86 37.39 1.52 6.64 1.35 0.49 36.19 2.36 0.22 0.29 0.94 14.41 0.04

24 72 283.5 4 0.80 0.57 218.40 71.35 0.21 2.98 0.16 0.11 69.98 5.09 0.71 0.45 0.40 47.11 0.02

24 72 283.5 138 38.30 4.09 6894.00 10.68 30.91 47.45 4.05 0.39 9.57 9.46 0.45 0.43 0.61 60.15 0.49

24 72 283.5 51 33.39 6.75 751.28 20.20 22.17 50.29 1.77 0.35 19.74 18.92 0.80 0.42 0.57 50.96 0.18

24 72 283.5 14 15.34 5.40 383.50 35.18 7.60 30.96 0.45 0.16 34.77 33.93 1.80 0.34 0.69 54.61 0.05

24 72 283.5 6 1.02 0.49 428.40 48.45 0.40 2.59 0.12 0.05 46.22 8.42 1.22 0.31 0.88 87.56 0.02

Model

N.R.

Half normal

Half normal

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal


N.R.


Cosine -1

Cosine - 2

Half normal Cosine 2


2


Biomass (kg / km )

2

Buffalo

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

Camel


30 | P a g e

Results Table 7. Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Dechu of Jodhpur district Wild prey species Category / Prey species

Domestic Livestock

Blackbuck

Chinkara

Nilgai

Peafowl

Grey Francolin


17 51 199.5 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R.

17 51 199.5 25 3.19 1.54 38.28 48.11


N.R.

1.22 - 8.35



0.73 0.35 47.99 4.39 0.15 0.48 0.77 86.33 0.13

17 51 199.5 8 1.18 0.59 212.40 49.56 0.44 3.16 0.26 0.13 48.93 4.54 0.36 0.38 0.54 77.23 0.04

17 51 199.5 13 3.51 0.88 11.93 25.11 2.10 5.86 0.62 0.15 23.87 5.65 0.44 0.50 0.91 52.50 0.07

17 51 199.5 12 4.93 1.50 1.33 30.44 2.67 9.08 2.09 0.60 28.95 2.36 0.22 0.29 0.94 14.41 0.06

17 51 199.5 3 0.77 0.44 210.21 57.03 0.25 2.31 0.15 0.08 55.30 5.09 0.71 0.45 0.40 47.11 0.01

17 51 199.5 70 27.61 4.05 4969.80 14.68 20.4 35.36 2.92 0.41 13.89 9.46 0.45 0.43 0.61 60.15 0.35

17 51 199.5 44 40.94 7.38 921.15 18.02 28.23 59.39 2.16 0.38 17.51 18.92 0.80 0.42 0.57 50.96 0.22

17 51 199.5 34 52.94 12.21 1323.50 23.07 32.99 84.97 1.56 0.35 22.45 33.93 1.80 0.34 0.69 54.61 0.17

17 51 199.5 9 2.17 0.83 911.40 38.44 1.02 4.63 0.26 0.09 35.59 8.42 1.22 0.31 0.88 87.56 0.05

Model

N.R.

Half normal

Half normal

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal


N.R.


Cosine -1

Cosine - 2

Half normal Cosine 2


2


Biomass (kg / km )

2

Buffalo

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

Camel


31 | P a g e

Results Table 8. Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in erstwhile closed area Doli-Dhawa of Jodhpur district Wild prey species Category / Prey species No. of spatial replicates (Line Transect) Total no of walk Effort (L) km Total no of observation Individual Density (Di) / km

2



Group Density (Ds) / km Ds Standard Error (± SE) Ds Coefficient of variation (% CV) Cluster Size (Mean) Standard Error (± SE) Detection probability (p) 2 Goodness of fit (chi - p) Effective Strip Width (ESW) (m) Group encounter rate / km Model Model adjustment term

Domestic Livestock

Blackbuck

Chinkara

Nilgai

Peafowl

Grey Francolin

30 90 354 51 5.95 2.3 208.25 38.56

30 90 354 192 13.80 2.13 165.60 15.46

2.81 - 12.62

10.15 - 18.78

0.75 0.27 35.78 7.94 1.14 0.6 0.63 96.03 0.14

3.14 0.47 15.07 4.39 0.15 0.48 0.77 86.33 0.54

30 90 354 32 2.66 0.74 478.80 27.97 1.53 4.63 0.59 0.16 26.84 4.54 0.36 0.38 0.54 77.23 0.09

30 90 354 38 5.78 1.47 19.65 25.37 3.48 9.57 1.02 0.25 24.14 5.65 0.44 0.50 0.91 52.50 0.11

30 90 354 4 0.93 0.57 0.25 61.08 0.29 2.91 0.39 0.24 60.36 2.36 0.22 0.29 0.94 14.41 0.01

30 90 354 4 0.61 0.38 166.53 62.10 0.19 1.95 0.12 0.07 60.52 5.09 0.71 0.45 0.40 47.11 0.01

30 90 354 142 31.56 2.94 5680.80 9.32 26.22 37.98 3.34 0.27 8.02 9.46 0.45 0.43 0.61 60.15 0.40

30 90 354 73 38.28 5.19 861.30 13.54 29.19 50.21 2.02 0.26 12.86 18.92 0.80 0.42 0.57 50.96 0.21

30 90 354 27 23.69 5.90 592.25 24.92 14.41 38.96 0.70 0.17 24.34 33.93 1.80 0.34 0.69 54.61 0.08

30 90 354 8 1.05 0.47 441.00 44.89 0.44 2.49 0.12 0.05 42.48 8.42 1.22 0.31 0.88 87.56 0.02

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal



Cosine -1

Cosine - 2

Buffalo

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

Camel

Cosine - 2

32 | P a g e

Results Table 9. Estimated density, biomass, cluster size and other statistical parameters of major herbivore species in all erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district Wild prey species Category / Prey species

Domestic Livestock

Blackbuck

Chinkara

Nilgai

Peafowl

Grey Francolin

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

390 1461 77 2.08 0.64 72.80 30.91

390 1461 431 7.51 0.96 90.12 12.80

1.15 - 3.77

5.84 - 9.65


0.26 0.07 27.37 7.94 1.14 0.63 0.97 100.57 0.05

1.71 0.21 12.32 4.39 0.15 0.48 0.77 86.33 0.30

390 1461 1005 2.11 0.41 379.80 19.20 1.45 3.08 0.47 0.08 17.52 4.54 0.36 0.38 0.54 77.23 0.07

390 1461 91 3.35 0.60 11.39 17.76 2.37 4.74 0.59 0.10 15.96 5.65 0.44 0.50 0.91 52.50 0.06

390 1461 61 3.42 0.66 0.92 19.44 2.34 5.00 1.45 0.25 17.01 2.36 0.22 0.29 0.94 14.41 0.04

390 1461 46 1.70 0.44 464.10 26.12 1.02 2.82 0.33 0.07 22.11 5.09 0.71 0.45 0.40 47.11 0.03

390 1461 541 29.13 2.19 5243.40 7.53 25.13 33.77 3.08 0.18 5.84 9.46 0.45 0.43 0.61 60.15 0.37

390 1461 268 34.05 3.26 766.13 9.58 28.22 41.09 1.80 0.15 8.57 18.92 0.80 0.42 0.57 50.96 0.18

390 1461 134 28.49 4.02 712.25 14.10 21.62 37.55 0.84 0.11 13.05 33.93 1.80 0.34 0.69 54.61 0.09

390 1461 36 1.18 0.32 495.60 26.93 0.70 2.00 0.14 0.03 22.69 8.42 1.22 0.31 0.88 87.56 0.03

Model

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Uniform

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal

Half normal



Cosine -1

Cosine - 2


2




Buffalo

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

Camel

Cosine - 2

33 | P a g e

Results Figure 4. Detection probability curve of blackbuck generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during JanuaryFebruary 2015. 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Perpendicular distance in meters

Figure 5. Detection probability curve of chinkara generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during JanuaryFebruary 2015.

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


34 | P a g e

Results Figure 6. Detection probability curve of nilgai generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015. 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


Figure 7. Detection probability curve of peafowl generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during JanuaryFebruary 2015. 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120


35 | P a g e

Results Figure 8. Detection probability curve of grey francolin generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during JanuaryFebruary 2015. 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Figure 9. Detection probability curve of domestic buffalo generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015. 1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120


36 | P a g e

Results Figure 10. Detection probability curve of cattle generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015. 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Figure 11. Detection probability curve of domestic goat generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during JanuaryFebruary 2015. 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120


37 | P a g e

Results Figure 12. Detection probability curve of sheep generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015. 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


Figure 13. Detection probability curve of camel generated by DISTANCE 6.0 software as studied in the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district during January-February 2015. 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0

50

100

150

200

250

300


38 | P a g e

Results Figure 14. Distribution map of blackbuck as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

39 | P a g e

Results Figure 15. Distribution map of chinkara as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

40 | P a g e

Results Figure 16. Distribution map of nilgai as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

41 | P a g e

Results Figure 17. Distribution map of peafowl as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

42 | P a g e

Results Figure 18. Distribution map of grey francolin as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

43 | P a g e

Results Figure 19. Distribution map of domestic livestock as per line transect record in all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur district

44 | P a g e

Results Results of habitat conditions (Vegetation Sampling): The density of tree layer in the study area is ecologically very low due to the arid nature of the soil. A total of 16 species of trees and 13 species of shrubs were encountered during the vegetation sampling across the entire study area covering all 2515 quadrats. The observed mean tree density (50.26 ± 9.96 SE ha-1) was lower than the mean shrub density (343.88 ± 10.48 SE ha-1), though the mean diversity value was found to be higher for trees (18.3 ± 0.003 SE) compared to shrubs (13.6 ± 0.005 SE). The detail of the density estimates of the tree and shrub layers across all the six erstwhile closed areas as well as for the entire study area are given in table 10 and table 11 respectively. The sobs (‘Mao Tau’ Colwell et al. 2004) richness and Chao diversity index values (Chao 1984) of each category of vegetation (trees and shrubs) were given in tables 12 and 13. The mean richness of tree and shrub layers were estimated as 16 ± 0.008 SE and 13 ± 0.014 SE respectively. Prosopis cineraria was found to be the most dominant species with GBH of individuals within class interval of mostly 70-90 cm followed by Pongamia pinnata, Albizia lebbeck, Acacia nilotica and Azadirachta indica in descending order. Simultaneously Prosopis cineraria was found the highest IVI value (96.84) for the entire study area

whereas for Balanites roxburghii the IVI value came out to be the lowest (0.17). Details of IVI for all the tree species are discussed in table 14.

45 | P a g e

Results Table 10. Estimated tree density on 10m x 10m quadrat at every 200m interval on each line transect in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

Species / Study sites

Acacia nilotica Acacia senegal Acacia tortilis Albizia lebbeck Azadirachta indica Balanites egyptiaca Balanites roxburghii Capparis decidua Pongamia pinnata Prosopis cineraria prosopis juliflora Salvadora oleoides Salvadora persica Tecomella undulata Zizyphus jujube Zizyphus mauritiana

Guda Dechu Bishnoiyan D D SE SE -1 (ha ) (ha-1) 3.10 0.91 N.R. N.R. 0.24 0.24 1.51 0.67 N.R. N.R. 2.11 0.79 N.R. N.R. 3.01 0.94 0.48 0.34 4.52 1.14 0.48 0.34 N.R. N.R. 0.24 0.24 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 3.01 0.94 29.12 2.42 26.51 2.43 3.82 1.11 N.R. N.R. 0.48 0.34 4.22 1.10 1.91 0.67 7.23 1.42 1.91 0.67 0.90 0.52 0.48 0.34 N.R. N.R. 4.77 1.15 3.92 1.07

Dhawa

Jamba

Lohawat

Sathin

Overall

D D D D D SE SE SE SE SE -1 -1 -1 -1 (ha ) (ha ) (ha ) (ha ) (ha-1) 9.18 1.59 0.30 0.02 2.54 0.84 4.66 1.10 3.26 0.74 0.17 0.17 N.R. N.R. 0.63 0.37 N.R. N.R. 0.20 0.24 0.51 0.29 8.01 1.48 9.09 1.32 7.67 1.39 4.29 0.88 6.46 1.15 N.R. N.R. 7.40 1.20 6.30 1.27 4.02 0.76 7.82 1.58 N.R. N.R. 7.19 1.19 1.10 0.55 3.26 0.80 0.17 0.17 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.12 0.08 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.04 0.04 N.R. N.R. 8.01 1.48 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 5.45 0.25 7.14 1.37 N.R. N.R. 13.95 1.59 N.R. N.R. 4.69 0.65 7.48 1.09 7.42 1.43 14.59 1.62 22.74 2.23 12.49 1.87 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.42 0.30 0.27 0.02 0.44 0.24 2.72 0.86 1.48 0.66 0.85 0.42 N.R. N.R. 1.67 0.56 11.56 1.91 0.89 0.51 N.R. N.R. 0.55 0.39 2.74 0.82 15.65 2.19 5.04 1.19 0.42 0.30 2.47 0.81 4.21 0.95 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 4.66 1.17 0.64 0.25 5.44 1.00 N.R. N.R. 2.75 0.75 3.29 1.01 2.74 0.83 (D – Density per hectare; N.R. – Not Recorded; SE – Standard Error)

46 | P a g e

Results Table 11. Estimated shrub density on 5m x 5m quadrat at every 200m interval on each line transect in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur

Species / Study sites Aerva javanica Balanites roxburghii Calotropis procera Capparis decidua Cassia angustifolia Cassia tora Crotalaria burhia Flacourtia seperia Leptadenia pyrotechnica Prosopis cineraria Maytenus emerginata Salvadora persica Zizyphus nummularia

Guda Bishnoiyan D SE (ha-1) 3.82 2.70 7.64 2.68 110.74 17.57 130.79 16.17 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 1.91 1.91 N.R. N.R. 1.91 1.91 391.41 45.77 2.86 2.13 105.97 21.87

Dechu

Dhawa

Jamba

Lohawat

Sathin

Overall

D D D D D D SE SE SE SE SE (ha-1) (ha-1) (ha-1) (ha-1) (ha-1) (ha-1) 314.46 30.43 213.92 42.39 1515.73 106.77 601.27 69.06 169.86 38.79 83.02 N.R. N.R. 3.40 1.79 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 9.86 4.22 2.86 220.48 27.68 140.58 17.08 144.81 21.72 145.45 13.95 107.40 16.56 71.09 37.35 6.84 86.93 8.82 98.52 16.58 43.97 7.10 52.60 11.70 47.55 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 102.33 24.27 N.R. N.R. 6.34 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 4.23 1.05 N.R. N.R. 0.32 4.82 2.40 N.R. N.R. 5.93 3.13 136.15 8.81 77.81 8.30 38.01 N.R. N.R. 12.22 8.70 N.R. N.R. 8.46 2.65 N.R. N.R. 2.23 26.51 9.23 N.R. N.R. 54.60 11.13 21.99 8.15 78.90 20.70 11.61 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 1.16 60.24 13.24 100.51 16.54 16.62 7.46 61.73 12.49 135.89 29.53 42.78 N.R. N.R. 4.07 1.92 5.93 2.64 2.54 1.89 16.44 7.63 3.18 14.46 5.34 61.80 8.58 74.78 12.42 21.14 5.85 176.44 29.49 33.72 (D – Density per hectare; N.R. – Not Recorded; SE – Standard Error)

47 | P a g e

SE 48.35 1.45 19.09 11.20 4.05 0.17 3.77 2.21 8.20 0.32 20.84 2.70 13.92

Results Table 12. Estimated species richness and diversity index for the tree layers analyzed by program Estimate S in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Closed Area Guda Bishnoiyan - Fitkashni Dechu Doli-Dhawa Jamba Lohawat Sathin Overall

Sobs Richness

Standard Error (SE)

Shannon Mean

Chao diversity

Standard Error (SE)

12

0.033

1.42

12.2

0.03

10 12 7 11 10 16

0.09 0.039 0.0065 0.006 0.03 0.0076

1.44 2.19 1.62 1.92 1.77 2.35

11.7 13.28 8.3 13 11.3 18.3

0.07 0.093 0.025 0.044 0.013 0.003

Table 13. Estimated species richness and diversity index for the shrub layers analyzed by program Estimate S in different erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Closed Area Guda Bishnoiyan - Fitkashni Dechu Doli-Dhawa Jamba Lohawat Sathin Overall

Sobs Richness

Standard Error (SE)

Shannon Mean

Chao diversity

Standard Error (SE)

9

0.94

1.52

10.2

0.024

7 8 8 11 9 13

0.23 0.08 1.2 0.2 0.15 0.0138

1.32 1.66 1.55 1.85 1.97 1.84

7.5 9.2 8.7 12.1 9.7 13.6

0.03 0.062 0.034 0.05 0.032 0.005

48 | P a g e

Results Table 14. Estimated importance value index (IVI) for the tree layers analyzed by program Estimate S across all the erstwhile closed areas of Jodhpur Relative Species / Parameters Prosopis cineraria Acacia tortilis Pongamia pinnata Albizia lebbeck Tecomella undulata Capparis decidua Azadirachta indica Acacia nilotica Salvadora persica Zizyphus mauritiana Salvadora oleoides Zizyphus jujube Prosopis juliflora Acacia senegal Balanites egyptiaca Balanites roxburghii

Density

Relative

Relative

Frequency Dominance

IVI

31.48422

24.84177

40.51195

96.83794

11.207

8.544304

6.13098

25.88229

8.187037

9.335443

7.916602

25.43908

8.084545

7.990506

7.818548

23.8936

7.674549

8.386076

5.470403

21.53103

3.414752

10.83861

6.363214

20.61657

6.602329

6.487342

6.770914

19.86058

4.782903

6.487342

7.617278

18.88752

5.425749

5.458861

4.273107

15.15772

5.85815

5.458861

2.848738

14.16575

2.949599

3.322785

2.601022

8.873406

2.138627

1.265823

0.495433

3.899882

1.128487

0.870253

0.737988

2.736728

0.856023

0.39557

0.258038

1.509631

0.159467

0.237342

0.13934

0.536149

0.046557

0.079114

0.046447

0.172118

49 | P a g e

Results 5.2 Marking of erstwhile closed areas in GIS domain

The exact boundaries of all the 98 villages which constituted the six erstwhile closed areas were not available with the forest department during their notification period in early 1980’s. Therefore, during this survey we recorded the latitude and longitude of different important landmarks such as schools, hospitals, water points, banks, post offices, forest chowkies, police stations etc. situated in each village with hand help Garmin 72 GPS device. Wherever we could find the boundary pillars of the villages we recorded those locations as well. Thereafter, those locations were plotted in GIS domain, projected in UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) scale and finally joined to prepare the periphery of each erstwhile closed areas. Separate maps were prepared consisting of each of the geographical landmark recorded across the entire study area (all the maps are enclosed as annexure at the end of the report Map 01-19).

5.3 Results of Socio-economic survey:

A total of 2470 households were surveyed during the study and 3366 people were interviewed out of which 2984 (88.7%) were male and 382 (11.3%) were female respondent. All the interviewees were above the age of 18 years. Except respondents of guda Bishnoiyan and sathin closed areas, majority of interviewees from all other places replied that the status of the oran (community land) around their villages was degraded than past. Overall more than 60% respondents in the entire study area also opined the

50 | P a g e

Results same. The comparative status of percentage response pattern on the issue of status of oran is shown in figure 20.

On the issue of status of wildlife abundance nearly 70% (69.34%) from the entire study area replied that it got deteriorated than the past 15 to 20 years. Except the interviewees of Jamba, majority people from all other erstwhile closed areas opined in the same pattern. The comparative status of percentage response pattern on the issue of status of wildlife abundance in present w.r.t. the 15-20 years back across all the study sites is shown in figure 21.

When the people who opined that the abundance of wildlife in present was reduced than past days were further asked to indicate the probable cause of such degradation, more than 57% of people blamed illegal hunting of the wildlife as the main reason. Similar pattern of response were observed across all the six erstwhile closed areas. Among other reasons of deterioration of wildlife status in the study area, issues such as habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation due to modern agricultural practices and accidents due to motor vehicles and domestic dogs were also reported by the interviewees. The comparative percentage response pattern to indicate the probable reasons of wildlife status deterioration in present time w.r.t. the earlier 15-20 years period across all the study sites is shown in figure 22. Inversely, when the people who opined that the abundance of wildlife in present got increased than past days were

51 | P a g e

Results further asked to indicate the probable cause of such augmentation, more than 40% of people replied more provision of food for the wild herbivores with the advancement of agriculture as the main reason. Around 32% of such respondents also opined better availability of water in Jodhpur district at present and more than 27% people thought that with better protection measures from both community and government agencies (forest and police department) had increased the abundance of wildlife in the study area. Detail of percentage response pattern to indicate the probable reasons of wildlife status augmentation is shown in figure 23.

In response to the issue of crop-raiding incidences by the wild herbivores, 88.5% interviewees expressed their disappointment over it as a nuisance to their agricultural practices whereas only six percent people accepted it as natural phenomenon and rest five percent found it tolerable. The trend of response was identical across all the study sites as it is shown in figure 24. When the interviewees were asked about how they have felt for legal status of erstwhile closed areas, 68% people replied that they did not like their surroundings to be declared as closed areas whereas only 11% of them accepted it well and rest 20% people stayed neutral being unwilling to comment on this. The patterns of the response on this issue across all the six erstwhile closed areas are shown in figure 25.

52 | P a g e

Results Results of our questionnaire survey revealed that 42% of the total interviewees reported Indian grey wolf missing from their localities during the last decade while 40% respondents described vultures as the most susceptible species towards local extinction. Species such as hyena, jackal and Indian fox were also reported missing across the entire study area by ten percent, five percent and two percent interviewees respectively. The trend of responses in this issue across all the six erstwhile closed areas are shown in figure 26.

Except Jamba and Lohawat areas, pigs were reported as the most problematic animal followed by nilgai, chinkara, blackbuck and rats to damage the agricultural fields. Overall 42.8% respondents replied pigs as most malicious animal while 38% reported nilgai as most problematical animal towards crop production. The detail of response pattern by the interviewees on this issue across all the study sites are given in figure 27. The results of our survey showed that in the overall study area, 53% people were prompt in rescuing the injured wildlife whereas 36.5% people took much time to decide about the rescue operations. The rest ten percent people were found to be uninterested in rescuing the injured animals. Amongst all the six study sites, highest proportion of 86% and 53% of all interviewees were keen to rescue the injured wildlife immediately in Sathin and Lohawat areas respectively. The detail of the response regarding this issue across all the study sites are shown in figure 28.

53 | P a g e

Results Regarding the initiatives of eco-tourism as an option of simultaneous livelihood generation for the local communities and conservation of wildlife, more than 50% interviewees in the entire study area opposed such ideas as they feared that such initiative might take away the grazing land of their domestic livestock. Around 31% of the total respondents in the entire study area had agreed and welcome eco-tourism initiatives as they thought it would increase their livelihood opportunities whereas rest 18.7% people stayed neutral to this issue. The details of the response patterns of the interviewees across all the erstwhile closed areas are given in figure 29.

Finally when the interviewees were asked about their relationship with the forest department, except respondents of Guda and Sathin areas, majority of the other four erstwhile closed areas expressed their dissatisfaction stating that they did not have any interactions with the local forest department authorities. Overall more than 57% of the interviewees across all the six study sites expressed negative feedback regarding their relationship with the forest department while 26.4% people had positive relationship with the forest department. Rest 16% people had replied that they had an indifferent relationship with the forest department. The details of the responses regarding this issue across all the six study sites are shown in figure 30.

54 | P a g e

Results Figure 20. Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of status of oran across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 21. Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of status of wildlife across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

55 | P a g e

Results Figure 22. Estimated percentage response pattern on the reasons of wildlife depletion across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 23. Estimated percentage response pattern on the reasons of wildlife rejuvenation across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

56 | P a g e

Results Figure 24. Estimated percentage response pattern on the issue of crop-raiding by wild herbivores across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 25. Estimated percentage response pattern on the legal status of erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur

57 | P a g e

Results Figure 26. Estimated percentage response pattern on the decline of major wildlife species across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 27. Estimated percentage response pattern on the major problematic wildlife species across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

58 | P a g e

Results Figure 28. Estimated percentage response pattern on the reaction time in wildlife rescue across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

Figure 29. Estimated percentage response pattern on the initiatives of eco-tourism in community conservation areas across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

59 | P a g e

Results Figure 30. Estimated percentage response pattern on the relationship between forest department and local community across the entire study area of Jodhpur district

60 | P a g e

6. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Ecological Issues The present study is a preliminary scientific base line survey conducted in short period (two months) to understand the abundance, distribution of the herbivores (wild and domestic) using distance sampling based line transects, vegetation quadrats to evaluate their habitat conditions and also the perception of local communities towards erstwhile closed areas and to assess the potentials for future conversion to community conserved areas or look at other aspects vital for conservation of biological value in these areas. The estimated Abundance of wild ungulate species in the study area is quite high having almost no well established protection mechanism in place. The density and diversity of both tree and shrub layers in this arid ecosystem was naturally much less than it was estimated in the semi-arid landscape of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Alwar, Rajasthan by Kidwai 2013. The official census data of Jodhpur during last 20 years and rescue operation data of last seven years showed decline and high rate of mortality in the wild herbivore population (Table 15 and 16). Therefore, within naturally low productive desert ecosystem if this trend continues, the future will be very bleak for the wildlife in this region. Studies such as Dookia 2009 and Dutta et al. 2014 also showed the similar concern of population decline in wild ungulates of desert ecosystem as well as rapid reduction in natural habitats.

61 |P a g e

Discussion and recommendations During this study it was recorded that the natural habitats of desert wild ungulates in both Guda Bishnoiyan and Doli-Dhawa erstwhile closed areas were converted into commercial and residential complexes under the urbanization projects of Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA). The rural areas in this district are getting converted to urban colonies at a fast pace and is affecting the very survival of these closed areas. With the agricultural advancements and extraction of ground water with powerful bore wells and pump sets, the cropping pattern of desert is getting changed from one crop in monsoon (kharif) to both ravi (winter) and kharif crop patterns. Therefore, many of the private land owners started erecting tall barbwire fencing around their crop field to protect from crop-raiding incidences. Wherever the ground water is sweet (non-saline) in nature, tall barbwire fencing is a common phenomenon (maximum observed in Lohawat, Dechu and Sathin areas) causing landscape fragmentation and permanent restriction in the movement and feeding patterns of the wild ungulates leaving very little space for them to survive. Therefore, as a blessing in disguise, wherever the underground water is saline (in Guda Bishnoiyan, Dhawa and Jamba areas) the crop pattern is still single (only monsoon – kharif crops) and subsequently agricultural fields are non-fenced. Thus, landscape continuity is not broken down for the movements, reproduction and feeding activities of the wild herbivores of desert.

62 | P a g e

Discussion and recommendations Four species of wild canids (Indian grey wolf, golden jackal, Indian fox and desert fox) and one lesser cat (desert cat) species are found in Jodhpur district whose ecology, behavior or population status were never studied. Long term studies should be designed to understand the ecology of these data deficient wild carnivores and their interaction with the surrounding environment. 6.2 Social Issues As per the socio-economic survey results, local communities pointed out illegal hunting practice as one of the major reasons of deterioration of wildlife population in Jodhpur along with habitat destruction and fragmentation. In spite of community prohibition, sporadic hunting events of blackbuck and chinkara are still occurring in places where majority of non-vegetarian communities are residing. Official records of Jodhpur wildlife division further showed that the threat of group hunting incidences of wild ungulates from domestic pet dogs of the agrarian communities and other stray dogs in the village is increasing during last decade. But rural people in some of the areas specifically in Guda Bishnoiyan, Doli-Dhawa and Jamba areas are still in support of conserving these wild herbivores. More than 42% respondents in the entire study area replied that their agricultural crops are heavily damaged by pigs. Some opined it as wild pigs and some as farm pigs. This issue should be critically addressed to reveal the genetic identification of these pigs to understand their legal status so that proper management interventions can be executed. 63 | P a g e

Discussion and recommendations More than 57% of the respondents across the entire study area replied that their relationship with forest department is not satisfactory and they have not received any kind of awareness exposure or conservation dialogue from the concerned authorities of forest department. During our field work we recorded presence of one or two forest guards in each of these closed areas. Compared to the vast geographical area, these closed areas are highly understaffed, probably this may be main reason for lack of any meaningful dialogue or communication with the local communities. After 2003 Wildlife protection Act amendment forest department did not have any management role of these closed areas, except for occasional animal rescue tasks. Therefore, periodic meetings of apposite authorities of forest department with the rural communities and workshops or field exposures on wildlife conservation should be held at least in the priority sites to increase the awareness and gain conservation support from the local community. 6.3 Closed area wise recommendations  Guda Bishnoiyan – Large areas of community lands (oran and gauchar) are available in Bisalpur, Rudekli and Guda Bishnoi villages under this erstwhile closed area. The status of wildlife in this area is still favorable but conversion of land use is a major threat in this area. The potential areas should be conserved as Conservation Reserve (CR) or Community Conservation Reserve (CCR) for long term survival of the desert wildlife. 64 | P a g e

Discussion and recommendations  Sathin – Presence of Indian grey wolf was recorded near Burchha and Sargiya khurd villages of this erstwhile closed area. Large areas of community lands (oran and gauchar) are available near these villages as well.  Jamba – Large population of desert fox is present in this erstwhile closed area. The local bishnoi community are willing to support wildlife conservation activities. Potential community lands (oran and gauchar) are available near chakhu, motai and balasar villages under this closed area which can be developed as CR or CCR.  Lohawat – all year long agricultural practices within fenced private lands have fragmented the natural landscape. Incidences of wildlife injury and mortality is also quite high in this erstwhile closed area. Still there are potential habitats left in Bhakari, Jeriya and Munjasar villages to support long term survival of desert wildlife.  Dechu – Extension of fenced private lands are maximum in this area resulting in reduction in wild herbivore population. Yet, Lodta hirada sot, Thadiya and sagran villages in this erstwhile closed area has potential for long term wildlife conservation. The Thadiya village is an ideal area to study the ecology of spiny tailed lizard.  Doli Dhawa – the most potential erstwhile closed area among all six in Jodhpur as per the wild herbivore population, availability of natural habitats and conservation support from community as well. The salinity of ground water does not allow year long agriculture therefore possibility of landscape fragmentation is least. The only threat is the expansion of Jodhpur city under the projects of JDA. Hirno ka tanka area, 65 | P a g e

Discussion and recommendations community areas in Godawas and Chicharli villages in this erstwhile closed area can be the potential places for developing CR or CCR. 6.4 General Recommendations for management practices across all closed areas:  Deployment of frontline staff is the major step for any management initiatives. But during the study, severe dearth of deputation and allocation of front line staff in each of the closed areas was observed compared to any protected area of India. It was observed that the wildlife monitoring work for the entire Jodhpur district (22,500 km2 area) was managed by just one range officer. Recruitment of more front line staff should be carried out to rectify the inadequacy in administrative system.  A detailed long term follow up study has to be carried out to understand the effect of habitat parameters and development projects on the desert ecosystem and finally site specific action plans should be designed to conserve the potential habitats and the existing wildlife under proper legal framework of CR or CCR.  Development of infrastructure for better treatment and cure of the rescued wildlife is also a need of this area. Engagement of veterinary practitioners and development of animal shelters are highly required. The induction process of the under-developed rescue centre in Khejadli village of Guda Bishnoiyan closed area should be given highest priority and pursued earliest possible.  The annual wildlife census techniques (waterhole census) used by the Jodhpur wildlife division is quite out dated. Initiation of science based wildlife monitoring 66 | P a g e

Discussion and recommendations census operation (distance sampling based line transect) and capacity building programs should be organized to revise the skills of the front line staff.  The forest department should organize periodic conservation awareness camps involving all the target groups (adult male, students and ladies) from the local communities and start dialogue process with them, so that whatever wildlife surviving in these erstwhile closed areas can be saved. Table 15. Official census results (water hole count) of wildlife carried out by the wildlife division of Jodhpur district during last 20 years

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Blackbuck Chinkara 3173 2707 3426 5449 3308 3644 3873 5768 3565 7336 0 0 NR NR 8927 36513 2307 5333 3888 7454 2488 9495 NR NR 1305 3659 1354 3956 1126 3489 1197 4463 1883 7682 2784 7806 2795 7824 2117 5190

Nilgai 548 348 723 781 1348 98 NR 3186 266 589 806 NR 323 465 498 701 1087 1848 1859 1420

Wolf 11 2 3 11 11 8 NR 179 0 9 4 NR 3 0 5 1 2 0 2 7

Fox jackal 14 17 14 19 32 30 31 87 56 70 0 61 NR NR 633 3 59 0 20 118 105 NR NR NR 37 56 27 17 16 115 24 96 13 137 50 76 35 84 63 99 (NR – Not Recorded) 67 | P a g e

Discussion and recommendations Table 16. Official records of the rescued injured wildlife (mainly herbivores) and their subsequent fate after treatment by the wildlife division of Jodhpur district during last seven years

Sl. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Period

April 2008 March 2009 April 2009 March 2010 April 2010 March 2011 April 2011 March 2012 April 2012 March 2013 April 2013 March 2014 April 2014 January 2015 Total

Total Rescued wildlife (herbivores)

No. of animals survived

No. of animals died

362

70

292

621

114

507

1008

216

792

678

236

442

862

238

624

641

139

502

907

178

729

5079

1191

3888

68 | P a g e

LITERATURE CITED

Bagchi S. Goyal S.P. and Sankar K. 2003. Prey abundance and prey selection by tigers (Panthera tigris) in a semi-arid, dry deciduous forest in western India. Journal of Zoology (London). 260, pp. 285-290. Bhattacharjee S. 2014. Prey selection, ranging pattern and habitat utilization of the reintroduced tigers (Panthera tigris tigris L.) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, western India. PhD Thesis submitted to Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat. June 2014. Biswas S. and Sankar K. 2002. Prey abundance and food habits of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Zoology (London). 256, pp. 411-420. Buckland S.T., Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P. and Laake, J.L. 1993. Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall, London. pp. 446. Buckland S.T., Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P., Laake J.L., Borchers D.L., and Thomas L. 2001. Introduction to Distance Sampling. London: Oxford University Press. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R., and Laake J.L. 1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monographs 72, pp. 1-202. Chao A. 1984. Non-parametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 11, pp. 265–270. Colwell R.K. and Coddington J.A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 345, pp. 101-118. Colwell R. 1997. Estimates: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from

samples.

Version

7.5.

User’s

guide

and application published online.

[URL:http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates] Colwell R.K., Mao C.X. and Chang J. 2004. Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology, 85, pp. 2717–2727.

69 |P a g e

Literature cited Cox G. 1990. Laboratory manual of general ecology 6th Ed. Dubuque, Iowa: WIlliam C. Brown. Curtis J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. In: An Ordination of Plant Communities, Wisconsin Press, Madison. Dookia S. 2009. Conservation of Indian Gazelle or Chinkara through community support in Thar Desert of Rajasthan, India. Dutta S., Bhardwaj G.S., Bhardwaj D.K., Jhala Y.V. 2014. Status of Great Indian Bustard and Associated Wildlife in Thar. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun and Rajasthan Forest Department, Jaipur. Harihar A., Pandav B and Goyal S.P. 2009. Density of leopard (Panthera pardus) in Chilla Range of Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand, India. Mammalia 73, pp. 68-71. IUCN

2013.

IUCN

Red

List

of

Threatened

Species.

Version

2013.1.

. Karanth K.U. and Sunquist M.E. 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64, pp. 439-450. Kent M. and Coker P. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis, A Practical Approach. John Wiley and Sons, NY, pp. 167-169. Khan J.A., Chellam R., Rodgers W.A., and Johnsingh A.J.T. 1996. Ungulate Densities and Biomass in the Tropical Dry Deciduous Forests of Gir, Gujarat, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12, pp. 149-162. Kidwai Z. 2013. Vegetation structure and composition in core area of Sariska National Park, Rajasthan. Indian Forester, 139 (7), pp. 636-644. Menon V. 2014. Indian Mammals. A field Guide. Hachette Book Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon, India. Pandeya S.C., Sharma S.C., Jain H.K., Pathak S.J., Palimal K.C., Bhanot V.M., 1977. The Environment and Cenchrus Grazing Lands in Western India. Final Report. Department of Biosciences, Saurasthra University, Rajkot, India. 70 | P a g e

Literature cited R Development Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In R

Development

Core

Team 2006 Vienna,

Austria:

R

Development

Core

Team http://www.R-project.org Ramesh M. and Ishwar N.M., 2008. Status and distribution of the Indian spiny-tailed lizard Uromastyx hardwickii in the Thar Desert, western Rajasthan., pp. 48. Group for Nature Preservation and Education, India. Rodgers W.A., Panwar H.S., Mathur V.B., 2002. Wildlife Protected Area Network in India: A Review (Executive Summary). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Sankar K., and Johnsingh A. J. T., 2002. Food habits of tiger (Panthera tigris) and leopard (Panthera pardus) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India, as shown by scat analysis. Mammal 66(2), pp. 285-289. Seber G. A. F., 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Second ed. Macmillan Publ. Co. Inc., New York, USA. pp. 654. Schaller G. B., 1967. The Deer and the Tiger. A study of Wildlife in India. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. pp. 370. Sikka, D.R., 1997. Desert Climate and its Dynamics. Current Science 72, 35-46. Stoen O.G. and Wegge P. 1996. Prey selection and prey removal by tiger (Panthera tigris) during the dry season in lowland Nepal. Mammalia 60, pp.363–373 The Wildlife Protection Act 1972. Amendment 2013. Ministry of Environment and Forests. Thomas L., Laake J., Rexstad E., Strindberg S., Marques F., Buckland S., Borchers D., Anderson D., Burnham K., Burt M., Hedley S., Pollard J., Bishop J. and Marques T., 2009. Distance 6.0. Release 1. Working plan Jodhpur 2013-14 to 2022-23. Forest Division Jodhpur. Prepared by Mr. M. S. Rathore. Directed by Mr. S. K. Jain and Mr. A. K. Singh. Project advisor Mr. A. C. Chaubey, PCCF, Department of Forests, Government of Rajasthan.

71 | P a g e

Annexure ANNEXURE I

Map 1. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Banks)

Map 2. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Electricity structures)

72 | P a g e

Annexure Map 3. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Forest Department structures)

Map 4. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Health Facilities)

73 | P a g e

Annexure Map 5. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Panchayat Facilities)

Map 6. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Police stations)

74 | P a g e

Annexure Map 7. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Post Offices)

Map 8. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Railway station)

75 | P a g e

Annexure Map 9. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Religious places)

Map 10. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (Education facilities)

76 | P a g e

Annexure Map 11. Landmark distribution map of different facilities in the study area (water sources)

77 | P a g e

Annexure ANNEXURE II

Plate 1. Blackbuck bachelors’ herd of at Dhawa

Plate 3. Chinkara females with fawns at Sathin

Plate 2. Blackbuck females at a water body in Guda

Plate 4. Male chinkara in Bhakari Lohawat

78 | P a g e

Annexure

Plate 5. Nilgai herd spotted at Dhawa

Plate 7. Pigs spotted at Dhawa

Plate 6. Nilgai females in Dechu

Plate 8. Boar spotted in Sathin

79 | P a g e

Annexure

Plate 9. Desert fox in Jamba

Plate 10. Desert fox in Sathin

Plate 11. Golden jackal in Fitkashini Guda

Plate 12. Golden jackal in Dhawa

Plate 13. Desert gerbil in Lohawat

Plate 14. Desert gerbil Dechu 80 | P a g e

Annexure

Plate 15. Demoiselle crane at a water body near Guda Plate 16. Long-legged buzzard spotted at Sathin

Plate 17. Black crowned sparrow lark at Lohawat

Plate 19. Shikra spotted in Lohawat

Plate 18. Lesser flamingo at Dhawa

Plate 20. Cinereous vulture and Eurasian griffon in Jamba 81 | P a g e

Annexure

Plate 21. Bhakad (hills) of Phinch village in Dhawa Closed area

Plate 22. Rohida habitat (Tecomella undulata) near Chichadli village in Dhawa Closed area

Plate 23. Hilly habitat near Rathkuria village in Sathin Closed area

Plate 24. Oran (Community land) of Rudekli village in Guda Closed area 82 | P a g e

Annexure

Plate 25. Questionnaire survey in Dhawa

Plate 26. Questionnaire survey in Jamba

Plate 27. Questionnaire survey in Guda

Plate 28. Questionnaire survey in Sathin

83 | P a g e

Annexure ANNEXURE III Project Title: Ecological Status survey of the erstwhile Closed Areas of the district of Jodhpur, Rajasthan Data Sheet for Distance Sampling of Prey Species on Line transect (Data sheet no: 01 / Closed areas / GOR) Transect ID:

Observers:

Transect Length: Transect Bearing: Sl. No.

Date:

Start GPS:

Start time:

Species

F

End GPS:

End time:

Total no. of animals

M

Weather condition:

JU

UNID

Village name and Tehsil: Sighting Angle (degree)

Walk Bearing (degree)

Angular sighting distance (Meter)

Major Vegetation Type* (10 m radius)

Major Terrain Type** (10 m radius)

Remarks / GPS Locations of wild herbivores and small – medium wild carnivores (whenever sighted)

TOTAL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Species to be recorded: Nilgai, Chinkara, Black buck, Wild pig, Hare, Common Langur, Rhesus Macaque, Livestock – Cattle, Buffalo, Goat, Sheep, Camel, donkey etc., Peafowl and Francolins and any other large birds. M - male, F - Female, JU - Juvenile, UNID – Unidentified *Vegetation type: 1) Acacia mixed forest, 2) Prosopis cineraria (Khejri) dominated forests, 3) Prosopis juliflora thickets and 4) Scrub land

**Terrain type: 1) Flat, 2) Gentle slope, 3) Sand dunes, 4) Rocky areas.

84 | P a g e

Annexure Project Title: Ecological Status survey of the erstwhile Closed Areas of the district of Jodhpur, Rajasthan Vegetation and disturbance data sheet on a quadrat of 10M x 10M at every 200M of each line transect (Data sheet no: 02 / Closed areas / GOR) Observer:

Sampling plot no.

LT ID:

Tree species (Quadrat of 10M x 10M) Species

No. Use Tally Marks and GBH (cm)

Date:

Time:

Shrub species (Quadrat of 10M x 10M) Species

No. Use Tally Marks

Lopping (Quadrat of 10M x 10M) Species and no. Use Tally Marks

Village and Tehsil:

Wood cutting (Quadrat of 10M x 10M) Species and no. Use Tally Marks

*Vegetation type: 1) Acacia mixed forest, 2) Prosopis cineraria (Khejri) dominated forests, 3) Prosopis juliflora thickets and 4) Scrub land

Pellet of wild Herbivores (2m x 20m) Species and no. Use Tally Marks

Remarks GPS location of the sampling point

**Terrain type: 1) Flat, 2) Gentle slope, 3) Sand dunes, 4)

Rocky areas.

85 | P a g e

Annexure Questionnaire Survey to assess Ecological Status of the erstwhile Closed Areas of the district of Jodhpur, Rajasthan (To be carried out among 2% adult population (> 18 years of age) of each village)

1. Name of the respondent: 2. Father / Husband’s name: 3. Age and sex: 4. Address: Village and Tehsil name: 5. Education: a. Illiterate, b. Primary, c. Secondary (X), d. Senior secondary (XII), e. College / University 6. Area of the land owned and land quality whether fertile lands or unfertile: 7. Which and how much crops do you grow in a year? 8. Livestock holding (Species and no.) 9. Feeding practice of the livestock: a) Stall feeding, b) Free grazing, c) guarded grazing, d) any other 10. Source of livelihood: a) Agriculture, b) Animal husbandry, c) Employment/ Labour work, d)Other specify 11. Do you know about any Oran near your village? Yes / No If yes – name and app. Area 12. Status of the known Oran – a) Getting better, b) As it is or c) Degraded than past 13. Status of agriculture in present days - a) Reduced, b) As it is or c) Increased 14. Past irrigation measures: 15. Present irrigation measure: Bore well / canal / other – specify 16. Major wildlife species seen in the present around the village and its’ effect on rural life – 17. Wildlife species missing in the present or severely declined in no. –

18. Change in wildlife status - a) Getting better, b) As it is or c) Declined than past 19. What are the probable indicators of change? 20. Do you know about any hunting incident in this region? (yes / no) if yes describe briefly 21. How is the relation with forest department? a) poor, b) Fair or c) Good 22. Are you aware of the problem of wild herbivores getting stuck in artificial fencing? Yes / no if yes 23. What do you think about artificial fencing? a) It’s highly required, b) It’s ok or c) It’s not required 24. How do you react to rescue any injured wild animal? a) immediately, b) after a while or c) never 25. Do you know about Eco-tourism initiatives? Yes / no if yes is it good / fair / bad 26. What do you think about crop raiding? a) It’s well accepted, b) It’s tolerable or c) It’s a nuisance 27. Are you aware of the earlier status of closed areas? Yes / no if yes was it accepted as good / fair / bad 28. Can anything be done to develop this area for wildlife conservation? 29. Any other remark on mintaining the ecological / cultural values of this area –

Name of the interviewer:

Date 86 | P a g e

Annexure

Project Title: Ecological Status survey of the erstwhile Closed Areas of the district of Jodhpur, Rajasthan

Factual data sheet for GPS locations and descriptions of the geographical features in each village of Closed areas in Jodhpur (Data Sheet no: 03 / Closed areas / GOR) Observer:

Date:

Sl no.

Geographical Features

1

School (s)

2

Panchayat Bhawan

3

Hand pump (s)

4

Well (s)

5

Religious place (s)

6

Historical monument / Ruin

7

Bank / Post Office

8

Water hole / pond / tank

9

Village boundary pillar (s)

10

Electric Pillar (s)

11

Forest Department Property

12

Police or Railway Station (s)

13

Any other important structure

Village and Tehsil:

GPS location (Lat and Long)

Brief Description

87 | P a g e

Bhattacharjee, S., Kidwai, Z., Bhattarai, S., Bajpai, H., Rathore, M.S. and Reddy, G.V. 2015. Ecological assessment of the erstwhile closed areas in Jodhpur district, Rajasthan. Technical report, March 2015, submitted to Department of Forests, Government of Rajasthan. pp – 87