Abstract
More than 51% of Bhutan is in a protected area (PA) network and our study demonstrates its effectiveness in conserving large and medium mammal species. We conducted camera trapping in Bhutan’s PAs, biological corridors (BCs) and intervening non-protected areas (NPAs) to investigate the richness and diversity of mammals, and assess the network’s efficacy in protecting mammals. 1858 camera traps were deployed within 1129 5-km × 5-km grids over 536 days between 2014 and 2015, resulting in 148,598 trap-nights (mean = 80 traps-nights/camera) which yielded nearly 10 million photos (mean = 5368 photos/camera trap). Fifty-six mammal species (65% of Bhutan’s 86 medium and large terrestrial mammal species) representing 18 families within seven orders were identified, of which, 18 (32.16%) are listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. There was a significant difference in mammal diversity between PAs, BCs, and NPAs (PERMANOVA test; p < 0.001; Pseudo-F = 6.40; unique perms = 9921), with the strongest difference between PAs and NPAs. Additionally, Hill’s numbers q = 0 (species richness), q = 1 (Shannon’s entropy index) and q = 2 (Simpson’s concentration index) revealed a higher mammal diversity in PAs compared to BCs and NPAs. Higher mammal diversity in PAs can be attributed to the added presence of threatened species, including the tiger Panthera tigris, red panda Ailurus fulgens, Asian elephant Elephas maximus, and golden langur Trachypithecus geei. However, BCs and NPAs share similar patterns of mammal diversity, and globally threatened species such as the Chinese pangolin Manis pentadactyla and Indian pangolin Manis crassicaudata were only detected in NPAs. Although Bhutan’s PA network is effective in conserving much of the country’s mammal diversity, realignment of some protected areas and biological corridors would ensure the long-term protection of several threatened mammal species.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
To prevent mass species extinction, halt global biodiversity loss, slow earth’s rising temperature, and ensure continued provision of essential ecosystem services, scientists advocate the protection of 50% of earth’s land and seas through inter-connected protected areas (Dinerstein et al. 2017; Wilson 2016; Wuerthner et al. 2015). However, Büscher et al. (2017) argued that a half-earth protection is impractical and would result in widespread negative consequences for human populations, especially in developing countries. Bhutan, nevertheless, achieved the Half-Earth target by setting aside 51.4% of the country’s area in a protected area (PA) and biological corridor (BC) network, including a commitment to protect 17% of global terrestrial land and inland water areas by 2020 through Achi Target 11 (Convention on Biological Diversity 2010). Although Bhutan’s PAs are well managed in partnership with local communities, they are experiencing increased pressure from infrastructure development, grazing, resource collection, human-wildlife conflict, and climate change (Dorji et al. 2012; Dorji 2016; Sangay and Vernes 2008; Thinley et al. 2018; Wang and Macdonald 2006). Previous studies on the nation’s PA management effectiveness indicated that scientific data on PA functionality and effectiveness is lacking which, in turn, hinders adaptive management to changing land use pressure and climate (Choden 2016; Lham et al. 2018; Tshering 2003).
Mammals are key indicators for measuring anthropogenic impacts on biota (Ceballos and Ehrlich 2002), and important for the maintenance and functionality of ecosystems through seed and fruit dispersal, pollination, nutrient recycling, and plant succession (Davidson et al. 2012; Ripple et al. 2015). Mammals also benefit people through the provision of food, recreation, and income (Naidoo et al. 2016; Velho et al. 2016). Therefore, knowledge on presence and distribution of mammals is crucial for planning and evaluating conservation strategies for a region or country (Tobler et al. 2008). Despite their importance, detailed understanding of mammal diversity, distribution, and abundance are lacking in many regions including the Eastern Himalayas (Dorji et al. 2018).
In this paper, we summarize the results of a nation-wide camera trapping survey between 2014 and 2015, and compare the richness and diversity of mammals in Bhutan’s protected areas, biological corridors, and intervening non-protected areas. We further ascertain the adequateness of Bhutan’s protected area and corridor network in conserving large and medium sized mammals.
Study area and methods
Altitude in Bhutan ranges from 150 to 7570 m above sea level (m asl) and there are three distinct eco-floristic zones: Alpine (> 4000 m asl), Temperate (2000–4000 m asl) and Sub-tropical (150–2000 m asl) (Ministry of Agriculture and Forests 2014). This study was conducted across Bhutan’s ten PAs, nine BCs that link PAs, and the intervening landscape comprising 14 Territorial Divisions (‘non-protected areas’ hereafter called ‘NPAs’). Our study area covered 33,909 km2 (88.30% of the country’s area) from 150 m asl to approximately 4500 m asl, and was divided into 5 × 5 km survey grids. It was segregated into two blocks (southern and northern; Fig. 1) which were sampled in two consecutive phases because of human resource constraints, camera trap availability, weather conditions, and funding availability. In each grid, we set up a camera station consisting of a pair of opposing un-baited cameras set 10–30 m apart at a height of 30–60 cm from the ground, and maintained a minimum distance of 2 km between any two camera stations for independence. We chose the 30–60 cm height range to document large and medium size mammals such as tigers and their prey, resulting in limitations to capturing small and aboreal mammals. Cameras were deployed along trails in areas with pronounced animal signs (tracks, scrapes, etc.) (Aung et al. 2017; Meyer et al. 2015; Moo et al. 2018; Tobler et al. 2008).
We compiled data over 536 days between January 2014 and June 2015, from 1129 camera stations comprising 1858 cameras (excluding malfunctioned cameras, stolen cameras, and cameras destroyed by elephants, rain, and windstorm). Image files were re-labeled according to their time and date using the Program ‘Renamer’ (http://www.snapfiles.com); sorted manually into species folders; and processed using ‘Camerasweet’ software (Sanderson and Harris 2014). Sampling effort at a station was calculated as the number of days a camera trap was operational at the location i.e. duration between installation of the last camera and retrieval of the first camera in each location. We assumed images of an individual species taken at least 30 min apart at a camera station to be independent events, and photographic rates or Relative Abundance Index (RAI) were obtained by dividing total events by the number of trap nights and multiplied by 100 (Rovero and Marshall 2009; Tobler et al. 2008). Species identification and conservation status were based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2018). We broadly characterized the community structure of mammals based on body mass (Smith et al. 2003) as follows: up to 1 kg = small sized mammal; 1–10 kg = medium sized mammal; and > 10 kg = large sized mammal. We further categorized mammals into general trophic categories i.e. carnivore, herbivore, insectivore and omnivore based on dietary literature (Lambert 2014; Nowak and Walker 1999; Wilson et al. 2017). There were only three records of two species of insectivores (Chinese Pangolin Manis pentadactyla and Indian pangolin Manis crassicaudata) in the NPAs. As such, we excluded them from any analysis.
We assessed the completeness of our sampling by computing the sample size and coverage-based accumulation curves among three treatments (PA, BC & NPA; hereafter called sites) based on the C.hat estimator with 95% confidence intervals as proposed by Chao and Jost (2012). This yields the expected number of species in a community by normalizing bias due to sample size (Chao and Jost 2012; Rovero et al. 2017). We compared species richness and diversity of mammals between the three sites using integrated sample size and coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation methods, for both abundance and incidence matrices at the 95% confidence interval (Chao et al. 2014; Chao and Jost 2012; Colwell et al. 2012). This allowed a fair comparison of species richness and diversity across sites despite differences in sampling effort (Chao et al. 2014; Hsieh et al. 2016). All the analyses were performed using the R package iNEXT (Hsieh et al. 2016). We also performed a one-factor design, SS Type III (partial) Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) test with 9999 permutations, to compare significant differences between site-associated mammal communities using Primer 6 (Primer‐E 2008).
Results
Trapping effort, species composition, and species detection rate
From 536 days of camera trapping, 9,975,258 photographs were obtained over 148,598 trap-nights (mean = 80 trap-nights/camera). Pooled data from multiple cameras in a grid returned a total sampling effort of 59,551 trap-nights in 751 survey grids (PA = 248; BC = 116; NPA = 387), from which, 51,017 independent photographs were obtained (20,496 in PAs; 8098 in BCs; 22,423 in NPAs). This comprised 19,448 trap-nights in PAs, 9787 trap-nights in BCs, and 30,316 trap-nights in NPAs (Table 1).
Fifty-six terrestrial mammal species representing 18 families within seven orders were recorded, of which, 18 (32.1%) are listed as threatened by the IUCN. Threatened species included one Critically Endangered (CR) mammal (1.8%; Chinese Pangolin), eight Endangered (EN) mammal species (14.3%; including tiger Panthera tigris, red panda Ailurus fulgens, golden langur Trachypithecus geei and Asian elephant Elephas maximus), and nine Vulnerable (VU) mammal species (16.1%; including clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosi, Takin Budorcas taxicolor, and Binturong Arctictis binturong) (Table 2). The remaining 38 mammal species comprised eight Near Threatened (NT) species (14.3%) and 30 species (53.6%) of Least Concern (LC) (Table 2). Carnivores were the most diverse group, represented by 28 species (50%). There were nine (16.1%) Rodent species, nine (16.1%) Cetartiodactyl species, five (8.9%) Primate species, two (3.57%) Pholidota species, two (3.6%) Lagomorph species, and one (1.8%) Proboscid species (Table 2). Eighteen (32.1%) of the 56 mammal species recorded were totally protected under the Forest and Nature Conservation Rule of Bhutan, 2017 (Table 2). In terms of trophic categories, there were 26 (46.4%) Carnivore, 24 (42.86%) Herbivore, two (3.6%) Insectivore, and 4 (17.1%) Omnivore species.
Overall naïve occupancy of people captured on camera was 0.52 comprising 8155 photos (15.9% of the total independent photographs excluding survey team members). The naïve occupancy of people was 0.4, 0.5, and 0.5 in the PAs, BCs, and NPAs, respectively. However, mean RAI of people was higher in BCs (mean ± SE photos per period = 1310 ± 300) compared to PAs (mean ± SE photos per period = 1227 ± 298) and NPAs (mean ± SE photos per period = 910 ± 120). Livestock (cattle, horse, yak, goat, sheep, and domestic dog) was captured in 14.35% of total independent photographs from 55.7% of camera stations. The naïve occupancy of livestock was 0.6, 0.6, and 0.5 in the PAs, BCs, and NPAs, respectively. Mean RAI of livestock was higher in PAs (mean ± SE photos per period = 1363 ± 208) and BCs (mean ± SE photos per period = 1333 ± 175) compared to NPAs (mean ± SE photos per period = 1066 ± 92). Some cameras stationed along the Indian border in the south also recorded Indian poachers carrying rifles (five stations), forest fires (six stations), and a vehicle (one station).
Commonly detected mammal species were barking deer Muntiacus muntjak, Sambar deer Rusa unicolor, wild-pig Sus scrofa, Asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus, Himalayan serow Capricornis thar, and gaur Bos gaurus (Table 2). The Asian elephant was also recorded in 91 camera stations (Table 2). Amongst the carnivores, commonly detected species were yellow-throated marten Martes flavigula, Asiatic golden cat Catopuma temminckii, leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis, common leopard Panthera pardus, and marbled cat Pardofelis marmorata (Table 2).
Uncommon species, recorded at just one camera station each, were small-toothed ferret badger Melogale moschata, small Indian mongoose Herpestes javanicus, Asian small-clawed otter Aonyx cinereus, golden langur, and Chinese pangolin (Table 2).
Sample completeness, species richness, and species diversity
Forty-one (73.2%) species were found at all three sites, while the remaining 15 (29.82%) occurred only in one or two sites (Table 2). A total of 47, 39 and 48 species were observed in PAs, BCs, and NPAs (Table 2), respectively. Similarly, eight (14.1%) species occurred only in PAs, six (10.52%) occurred only in NPAs, and one (1.8%) species occurred only in BCs. Forty-one (73.2%) species each overlapped between PAs and BCs, PAs and NPAs, and BCs and NPAs (Table 2). Overall detection rate was higher in PAs compared to BCs and NPAs (Table 2). Detection rates of Bovidae (mean ± SE photos per period = 14.4 ± 1.2), Cervidae (mean ± SE photos per period = 40.4 ± 2.2), Ochotonidae (mean ± SE photos per period = 0.35 ± 0.07), Elephantidae (mean ± SE photos per period = 7.49 ± 0.8), Hystricidae (mean ± SE photos per period = 3.3 ± 0.2), Cercopithecidae (mean ± SE photos per period = 1.56 ± 0.115, and Sciuridae (mean ± SE photos per period = 0.7 ± 0.1) families were higher in PAs compared to BCs and NPAs (Fig. 2).
Although PAs showed higher RAIs in terms of overall mammal species diversity compared to BCs and NPAs, mean RAI for tiger and common leopard was highest in the BCs (Table 2). Similarly, mean RAI for their favored prey species such as barking deer, wild-pig Sus scrofa, and musk deer Moschus spp. was also higher in BCs compared to PAs and NPAs (Table 2). However, mean RAI for sambar deer was higher in PAs (Table 2). BCs also had a higher RAI for the Mustelidae family and the RAI of one species from the Prionodontidae family, the spotted lingsang Prionodon pardicolor, was highest in BCs (Table 2). However, both pangolin species (Manis pentadactyla and Manis crassicaudata) was recorded only in the NPAs. Overall RAI of mammal species was lowest in NPAs compared to PAs and BCs (Table 2).
Sample size of unstandardized raw abundance data (number of individuals) combined for all mammal species was 23,131 for PAs, 8280 for BCs, and 12,689 for NPAs (Tables 3, 4). Observed species richness, Shannon diversity index, and Simpson diversity index (Hill’s numbers for q = 0, 1, 2) was 47, 16, and 11 for PAs, respectively; 39, 12, and 6 for BCs, respectively; and 48, 12, and 6 for NPAs, respectively (Tables 3, 4). Estimated species richness, Shannon diversity, and Simpson diversity (Hill’s numbers for q = 0, 1, 2) was 47, 16, and 11 for PAs, respectively; 39, 12, and 6 for BCs, respectively; and 52, 12, and 6 for NPAs, respectively (Tables 3, 4).
Although integrated sample size-based extrapolation curves at 95% confidence intervals for species richness (q = 0) showed that overall species richness was significantly higher in PAs and NPAs compared to BCs (Fig. 3a), confidence intervals for PAs and NPAs overlapped, suggesting there were no significant differences in species richness between PAs and NPAs. Sample coverage for the three sites was estimated at 100%, 100%, and 99% respectively, indicating that sampling was nearly complete for all sites (Fig. 3b). Curves reached their asymptote at a sample size of 4,500 sampling units (i.e. number of individuals) for all three sites. Both PAs and NPAs achieved their sampling asymptote well ahead of the sample reference point of 23,131 and 12,689, respectively (Fig. 3a). Similarly, both sample size and coverage-based sampling curves showed that overall species diversity was significantly higher in PAs compared to BCs and NPAs (top panel of Fig. 3a, b) for any fixed sample-size up to 23,131 and 0.99 in all orders of Hill’s numbers (q = 0, 1 and 2). Diversity of species in BCs and NPAs was almost similar in all cases except that species richness was higher in NPAs between 30 and 90% coverage (left panel in Fig. 3a, b for all mammals). PERMANOVA test results on mammal abundance data also showed a strong significant difference between the three sites (p < 0.001; Pseudo-F = 6.40; unique perms = 9921). Further pair-wise test results also showed similar results, with strong effects between PAs and NPAs, and BCs and NPAs.
Diversity of large and medium sized mammals was significantly higher in PAs compared to BCs and NPAs (Fig. 3a). There was no significant difference in small mammal diversity between all three sites. Some differences were also observed at the general trophic level (carnivore, herbivore, and omnivore; Fig. 3b). However, species richness was significantly lower in BCs for carnivores, herbivores, large-sized, and small-sized mammal species compared to PAs and NPAs (Fig. 3a, b). There were no significant differences in species richness between PAs and NPAs at all levels. In terms of specific tropic levels, species diversity of large-sized carnivores and medium-sized carnivores was significantly higher in PAs compared to BCs and NPAs (Fig. 3c). But species richness and diversity of small carnivores, medium-sized herbivores, and small herbivores was similar in all three sites (Fig. 3c, d). Similarly, the diversity of large herbivores was significantly higher in PAs compared to BCs and NPAs, despite no significant differences in species richness among three sites (Fig. 3c, d).
Discussion
Efficacy of Bhutan’s protected area network
Over 21% of global mammal species including those in the Eastern Himalayas are currently threatened with extinction (Dorji et al. 2018; IUCN 2018) from habitat alteration (Crooks et al. 2017; Schipper et al. 2008). Protected areas are integral for biodiversity conservation and play a vital role in preventing species extinction, preserving habitat integrity, and conserving species diversity especially across the Eastern Himalayas (Chettri et al. 2008; Dorji et al. 2018). However, Eastern Himalayan protected areas are becoming isolated pockets amidst unrelenting habitat conversion that is causing irreversible damage to the landscape and the region’s biodiversity (Chettri et al. 2008; Sharma et al. 2008; Dorji et al. 2018). Bhutan is one of the few global countries which has achieved the novel idea of securing at least half of the earth, as suggested by Wilson (2016) to address the species-extinction crisis, conserve biodiversity, and prevent collapse of vital services provided by ecosystems, such as carbon sequestration and climate regulation (Dinerstein et al. 2017). Our study further shows that Bhutan’s PAs are effectively conserving medium and large mammal species, as demonstrated through the significant difference in mammal diversity between PAs, BCs, and NPAs with the strongest difference between PAs and NPAs (Fig. 3; Table 3). Furthermore, results from our sample size and coverage-based sampling curves established a greater diversity of mammals in PAs relative to BCs and NPAs, while BCs and NPAs shared an almost similar pattern of mammal diversity. PAs in Bhutan afford better habitat protection because consumptive uses (firewood, non-timber forest products and timber for rural house construction) are heavily regulated, and no commercial activities (such as mining, hydropower damming and commercial logging) are allowed (Wangchuk 2007). PAs also effectively prevented up to 63% of net forest cover loss, with early established protected areas and the less fire-sensitive broadleaf forests showing higher effectiveness (e.g. Royal Manas and Jigme Dorji National Parks) (Bruggeman et al. 2018). However, confidence intervals in species diversity curves for BCs and NPAs eventually converge, indicating that these two landscape types share similar mammal species diversity. This can be possibly attributed to a land management perspective, as both BCs and NPAs are managed by Bhutan’s various Territorial Divisions for multiple land-use purposes (Bruggeman et al. 2018; Katel and Schmidt-Vogt 2015; Lham et al. 2018). Moreover, only three of the eight BCs are currently operational and have conservation management plans in place (Dorji and Wangdi 2018). However, resource use and accessibility in operationalized BCs are more regulated with tighter rules, than NPAs.
Previous studies from the region show that human disturbance adversely affects the abundance and conservation of small and large mammals (Dorji et al. 2012; Mishra et al. 2006; Panthi et al. 2017; Velho et al. 2016). Although forest cover in Bhutan increased between 1990 and 2010 with an annual net-gain of 0.22% (average annual growth rate of 59-km2/year) (Gilani et al. 2015), habitat quality did degrade in some areas because of infrastructure development such as hydropower dams, road-network expansion, industrial development, urbanization, selective logging, and mining (Bruggeman et al. 2016; Watershed Management Division 2017). Greater forest cover loss was also observed along the periphery of PA boundaries compared to areas inside and further away (Bruggeman et al. 2018). Most developments were initiated in the last three decades and mainly occurred in the NPAs and BCs, before BCs were operationalized. For example, all nine of Bhutan’s major hydropower dams, forest management units for logging, and district urban towns (except Gasa which has < 500 residents) are in NPAs. Based on studies by Tshering (2003) and Wangchuk (2002), livestock grazing was once thought to be the main threat to biodiversity conservation in Bhutan’s PAs. It has, however, subsequently decreased due to change in livestock grazing patterns and the promotion of intensive livestock management practices (Samdup et al. 2010; Wangchuk et al. 2014). In particular, local free ranging breeds of cows were progressively replaced by improved dairy crossbred cattle, which are mainly stall-fed (Samdup et al. 2010). PAs and BCs also have a higher proportion of shrub lands and grasslands relative to NPAs (Gilani et al. 2015). Such habitats are important for herbivores (Gibson 2009; Sankaran 2009). Similarly, only 4% of agricultural and human inhabited areas in the country fall inside PAs including BCs (Dorji and Wangdi 2018). Furthermore, habitat degradation from agricultural activities has decreased in the last two decades due to agricultural intensification, a ban on shifting cultivation, and increased agricultural imports (Bruggeman et al. 2016; Phuntsho et al. 2015; Roder et al. 1992). Therefore, despite human presence in Bhutan’s protected area network (Dorji et al. 2012), anthropogenic impacts are relatively low compared to NPAs, thus delivering better efficacy in maintaining and conserving mammal diversity.
Mammal species diversity and conservation
By virtue of adequate landscape protection, higher mammal diversity in PAs relative to BCs and NPAs is attributed to the presence of large and medium-sized carnivore species such as the tiger, dhole Cuon alpinus, Binturong, clouded leopard and Tibetan fox Vulpes ferrilata, along with large herbivore species such as Asiatic water buffalo Bubalus arnee, golden langur, musk deer, and Asian elephant (Table 2 and Fig. 3a, b). However, the presence of the critically endangered Chinese pangolin and endangered Indian Pangolin which are priority species for the Eastern Himalayas (Dorji et al. 2018), was only confirmed in NPAs (Table 2). NPAs also recorded higher diversity of omnivore species such as Asiatic black bear, wild pig Sus scrofa, Assamese macaque Macaca assamensis, Rhesus macaque Macaca mulatta, and yellow-throated marten Martes flavigula. A realignment of PA and BC boundaries to capture areas of NPAs known to support these species is, therefore, warranted and feasible in Bhutan where the vast majority of the landscape still remains forested regardless of tenure. This will be especially crucial for the survival of the endangered Chinese and Indian pangolins. Furthermore, all omnivorous species occurred at all three sites and are categorised as problematic species in the national human-wildlife conflict management strategy of Bhutan (Nature Conservation Division 2008), and thus, require immediate conservation and management intervention.
Bhutan has high carnivore diversity (39 species; Wangchuk et al. 2014) within large tracts of undisturbed habitat. Of the 56 terrestrial mammal species we detected, more than 50% were carnivores and about 16% were ungulates which are important prey (Wang and Macdonald 2009a, Table 1). This high carnivore diversity and associated prey can be largely attributed to the diverse array of habitats ranging from subtropical forests in the lowlands, to temperate broadleaf and mixed conifer forests at higher elevations across two biogeographical realms (Dinerstein et al. 2017). We detected nine (81.8%) of Bhutan’s 11 resident felid species across this landscape, and consistent with results from previous studies (Tempa et al. 2013; Wang and Macdonald 2009b), our study also showcases the effectiveness of Bhutan’s PAs in conserving large carnivores and their prey. BCs, in particular, have a higher diversity of large carnivores like tigers, clouded leopard, dhole and, common leopards, and prey species such as barking deer, sambar, wild-pig, and musk deer. This clearly indicates that Bhutan’s BCs are currently functional and facilitating movement, breeding or range expansion of these big cats (Wangchuk 2007). Because our study area stopped at the tree line (4500 m asl), we did not record high elevation felids like the snow leopard and Pallas’s cat Otocolobus manul. However, > 95% of areas above 4500 m asl are in the protected area network, with guaranteed protection (Dorji and Wangdi 2018).
Our comprehensive landscape survey recorded the presence of some rare mammals previously only known from sporadic records. This included the Chinese pangolin, Indian pangolin, mountain weasel Mustela altaica, small-toothed ferret badger, Binturong, Asian small clawed otter, and Bhutan giant flying squirrel Petaurista nobilis. However, we did not record the critically endangered pygmy hog Porcula salnania and vulnerable Indian rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis, previously recorded in the Royal Manas National Park (Wikramanayake and Wangchuk 1993) and only confirmed through anecdotal information in the last decade (Dorji 2014a, b). This may be because of their relative low density due to a reduction of grassland, shrubland, and associated barren areas (Gilani et al. 2015) which are key habitat requirements (Dinerstein and Price 1991; Mary et al. 2013). Grassland cover reduction in Bhutan is due to poor or non-existent habitat management, and invasion by exotics such as Lantana camara and Eupatorium odoratum (Dorji 2014a, b; Wangdi 2015).
Thirty-three percent (n = 19) of our detected mammal species are totally protected under the Forest and Nature Conservation Rules of Bhutan, and 31% (n = 18) are threatened under the IUCN category of threatened species. Despite stringent legislation, high mammal species diversity in PAs, and a strong political will for nature conservation, our detection of local people, domestic livestock, foreign poachers, and forest fires reveal inherent threats to resident mammals. This finding reinforces local and regional threats to mammals from agricultural activities, livestock grazing, timber collection, poaching and illegal trading of wildlife parts, forest fire, and human-wildlife conflict (Dendup and Lham 2018; Dorji et al. 2018; Velho et al. 2012). Despite these anthropogenic threats, Bhutan’s network of PAs and BCs still harbor a rich mammal community through the government’s ability to reconcile biodiversity conservation goals with social and economic issues. The importance of local communities within PAs and BCs is further recognized and integrated into PA conservation goals, and stewardship promoted through incentive-based conservation programs (Lham et al. 2018; Tshering 2003). This integration of landscape protection (PAs) and connectivity (BCs) along with harmonious coexistence with local communities, will ensure the conservation of Bhutan’s mammal diversity well into the future.
References
Aung SS, Shwe NM, Frechette J, Grindley M, Connette G (2017) Surveys in southern Myanmar indicate global importance for tigers and biodiversity. Oryx 51:13
Bruggeman D, Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF (2016) Forest cover changes in Bhutan: revisiting the forest transition. Appl Geogr 67:49–66
Bruggeman D, Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF (2018) Impact of land-use zoning for forest protection and production on forest cover changes in Bhutan. Appl Geogr 96:153–165
Büscher B et al (2017) Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx 51:407–410
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR (2002) Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science 296:904–907
Chao A, Jost L (2012) Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology 93:2533–2547
Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Hsieh T, Sander EL, Ma K, Colwell RK, Ellison AM (2014) Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol Monogr 84:45–67
Chettri N, Shakya B, Thapa R, Sharma E (2008) Status of a protected area system in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: an analysis of PA coverage. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage 4:164–178
Choden T (2016) An evaluation of the effectiveness of a protected area management Model in Bhutan: a case study of Phrumsengla National Park, Central Bhutan. Murdoch University
Colwell RK, Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Lin S-Y, Mao CX, Chazdon RL, Longino JT (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J Plant Ecol 5:3–21
Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Target 11
Crooks KR, Burdett CL, Theobald DM, King SRB, Di Marco M, Rondinini C, Boitani L (2017) Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:7635–7640
Davidson AD, Detling JK, Brown JH (2012) Ecological roles and conservation challenges of social, burrowing, herbivorous mammals in the world' sgrasslands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:477–486
Dendup P, Lham C (2018) Winter distribution and poaching of musk deer, Moschus chrysogaster and Moschus leucogaster in Jigme Dorji National Park, Bhutan. Int J Conserv Sci 9:193–198
Dinerstein E, Price L (1991) Demography and habitat use by greater one-horned rhinoceros in Nepal. J Wildl Manag 55:401–411
Dinerstein E et al (2017) An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67:534–545
Dorji T (2014a) Assessing population status of Pygmy Hog (Porcula salvinia) in Royal Manas National Park and Khaling Wildlife Sanctuary. The Rufford Small Grant Foundation, London
Dorji U (2014) Invasive species in ecological habitat of national parks in Bhutan. Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education
Dorji Y (2016) Water: securing Bhutan’s future. Asian Development Bank
Dorji S, Wangdi S (2018) Revision of Bhutan biodiversity conservation complex (B2C2). Thimphu
Dorji S, Rajaratnam R, Vernes K (2012) The Vulnerable red panda Ailurus fulgens in Bhutan: distribution, conservation status and management recommendations. Oryx 46:536–543
Dorji S, Rajaratnam R, Falconi L, Williams SE, Sinha P, Vernes K (2018) Identifying conservation priorities for threatened Eastern Himalayan mammals. Conserv Biol 32:1162–1173
Gibson DJ (2009) Grasses and grassland ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gilani H, Shrestha HL, Murthy M, Phuntso P, Pradhan S, Bajracharya B, Shrestha B (2015) Decadal land cover change dynamics in Bhutan. J Environ Manage 148:91–100
Hsieh T, Ma K, Chao A (2016) iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods Ecol Evol 7:1451–1456
IUCN (2018) The IUCN red list version 2018-1: Table 3a. http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Accessed 06 July 2018
Katel ON, Schmidt-Vogt D (2015) Bhutan: forest resources management and conservation in and outside protected areas multi-level forest governance in Asia: concepts, challenges and the way forward:102
Lambert JE (2014) Russell A. Mittermeier, Anthony B. Rylands, and Don E. Wilson (eds.). 2013. Handbook of the mammals of the world: 3. Primates. Lynx Ediciones, Barcelona, Spain, 953 pp. ISBN: 978-84-96553-89-7, price (hardbound), 160.00 EURO. American Society of Mammalogists 810 East 10th Street, PO Box 1897, Lawrence, KS 66044-8897
Lham D, Wangchuk S, Stolton S, Dudley N (2018) Assessing the effectiveness of a protected area network: a case study of Bhutan. Oryx 53:63–70
Mary PP, Sinha RR, Kumar A, Medhi M, Narayan G, Deka P (2013) Habitat characteristics of the Critically Endangered Pygmy Hog (Porcula salvania) of Manas National Park and Rajiv Gandhi Orang National Park in Assam, northeast India. Knowledge systems of societies for adaptation and mitigation of impacts of climate change. Springer, Berlin, pp 405–421
Meyer NF et al (2015) An assessment of the terrestrial mammal communities in forests of Central Panama, using camera-trap surveys. J Nat Conserv 26:28–35
Ministry of Agriculture and Forests (2014) Biodiversity action plan for Bhutan. Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Thimphu
Mishra C, Madhusudan M, Datta A (2006) Mammals of the high altitudes of western Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Himalaya: an assessment of threats and conservation needs. Oryx 40:29–35
Moo SSB, Froese GZL, Gray TNE (2018) First structured camera-trap surveys in Karen State, Myanmar, reveal high diversity of globally threatened mammals. Oryx 52:537–543
Naidoo R, Weaver LC, Diggle RW, Matongo G, Stuart-Hill G, Thouless C (2016) Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia. Conservation Biology 30:628–638
Nature Conservation Division (2008) Bhutan national human-wildlife conflicts management strategy, vol 1. Nature Conservation Division, Thimphu
Nowak RM, Walker EP (1999) Walker’s mammals of the world, vol 1. JHU Press, Baltimore
Panthi S, Khanal G, Acharya KP, Aryal A, Srivathsa A (2017) Large anthropogenic impacts on a charismatic small carnivore: Insights from distribution surveys of red panda Ailurus fulgens in Nepal. PLoS ONE 12:e0180978
Phuntsho K, Aryal KP, Kotru R (2015) Shifting cultivation in Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal: weighing government policies against customary tenure and institutions. ICIMOD Working Paper
Primer‐E (2008) PERMANOVA and Primer 6 computer program. Natural Environment Research Council, Plymouth
Ripple WJ et al (2015) Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Science Advances 1:e1400103. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400103
Roder W, Calvert O, Dorji Y (1992) Shifting cultivation systems practised in Bhutan. Agrofor Syst 19:149–158
Rovero F, Marshall AR (2009) Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates. J Appl Ecol 46:1011–1017
Rovero F, Owen N, Jones T, Canteri E, Iemma A, Tattoni C (2017) Camera trapping surveys of forest mammal communities in the Eastern Arc Mountains reveal generalized habitat and human disturbance responses. Biodivers Conserv 26:1103–1119
Samdup T, Udo H, Eilers C, Ibrahim M, Van der Zijpp A (2010) Crossbreeding and intensification of smallholder crop–cattle farming systems in Bhutan. Livest Sci 132:126–134
Sanderson J, Harris G (2014) Automatic camera trap data organisation, storage and analysis without entering data by hand using a keyboard. CSIRO PUBLISHING, Collingwood, Victoria 3066, Australia
Sangay T, Vernes K (2008) Human–wildlife conflict in the Kingdom of Bhutan: patterns of livestock predation by large mammalian carnivores. Biol Conserv 141:1272–1282
Sankaran M (2009) Diversity patterns in savanna grassland communities: implications for conservation strategies in a biodiversity hotspot. Biodivers Conserv 18:1099–1115
Schipper J et al (2008) The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322:225–230
Sharma E, Tse-ring K, Chettri N, Shrestha A, Kathmandu N (2008) Biodiversity in the Himalayas–trends, perception and impacts of climate change. In: Proceedings of the International Mountain Biodiversity Conference Kathmandu
Smith FA et al (2003) Body mass of late quaternary mammals. Ecology 84:3403–3403
Tempa T et al (2013) Royal Manas National Park, Bhutan: a hot spot for wild felids. Oryx 47:207–210
Thinley P et al (2018) The ecological benefit of tigers (Panthera tigris) to farmers in reducing crop and livestock losses in the eastern Himalayas: implications for conservation of large apex predators. Biol Conserv 219:119–125
Tobler M, Carrillo-Percastegui S, Pitman RL, Mares R, Powell G (2008) An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large-and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Anim Conserv 11:169–178
Tshering K (2003) Bhutan: management effectiveness assessment of four protected areas using WWF’s RAPPAM methodology. WWF International, Gland
Velho N, Karanth KK, Laurance WF (2012) Hunting: a serious and understudied threat in India, a globally significant conservation region. Biol Conserv 148:210–215
Velho N, Srinivasan U, Singh P, Laurance WF (2016) Large mammal use of protected and community-managed lands in a biodiversity hotspot. Anim Conserv 19:199–208
Wang SW, Macdonald DW (2006) Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biol Conserv 129:558–565
Wang SW, Macdonald DW (2009a) Feeding habits and niche partitioning in a predator guild composed of tigers, leopards and dholes in a temperate ecosystem in central Bhutan. J Zool 277:275–283
Wang SW, Macdonald DW (2009b) The use of camera traps for estimating tiger and leopard populations in the high altitude mountains of Bhutan. Biol Conserv 142:606–613
Wangchuk S (2002) Grazing management in national parks and protected areas: science, socio-economics and legislation (tenure). J Bhutan Stud 7:61–81
Wangchuk S (2007) Maintaining ecological resilience by linking protected areas through biological corridors in Bhutan. Trop Ecol 48:177
Wangchuk K, Wurzinger M, Darabant A, Gratzer G, Zollitsch W (2014) The changing face of cattle raising and forest grazing in the Bhutan Himalaya. Mt Res Dev 34:131–139
Wangdi T (2015) Grassland in Manas park under weed attack. Kuensel Corporation Limited, Thimphu
Watershed Management Division (2017) Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Bhutan. Department of Forests and Park Services, Thimphu
Wikramanayake ED, Wangchuk S (1993) An assessment of biodiversity in the proposed Royal Manas-Black Mountains National Park complex. Prepared for Nature Conservation Division, Department of Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan and WWF Bhutan Program, Thimphu, Bhutan
Wilson EO (2016) Half-earth: our planet’s fight for life. WW Norton & Company, New York
Wilson DE et al. (2017) Handbook of the mammals of the world, vol. 7: rodents II. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona
Wuerthner G, Crist E, Butler T (2015) Protecting the wild: parks and wilderness, the foundation for conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC
Acknowledgements
We would like to sincerely acknowledge the survey team members for their utmost dedication and hard work in collecting the data, and Royal Government of Bhutan and World Bank (IDA Project) for funding the field works.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by David Hawksworth.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Biodiversity protection and reserves.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dorji, S., Rajaratnam, R. & Vernes, K. Mammal richness and diversity in a Himalayan hotspot: the role of protected areas in conserving Bhutan’s mammals. Biodivers Conserv 28, 3277–3297 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01821-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01821-9