REPORT

IND

2014

Mammals of
D’Ering Wildlife Sanctuary
A Baseline Survey Report
 Copyright © 2014 – All rights reserved
WWF-India
172-B, Lodi Estate,
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: +91 11 4150 4814
Website: www.wwfindia.org

Published by WWF-India
Any reproduction in full or part of this
publication must mention the title and credit the
mentioned publisher as the copyright owner.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Mr. Omkar Singh, Chief
Wildlife Warden, & Mr. P. Ringu, DCF (WL& BD),
Government of Arunachal Pradesh for enabling
us to carry out the present survey. We express
our gratitude to Dr. Dipankar Ghose, Director,
Species & Landscape Species Division, and Dr.
Jimmy Borah, Coordinator, Tiger Programme,
WWF-India for their encouragement & support
for the present study. We thank the Range
Officers, Foresters who helped us immensely
in the field. Forest guards & payroll staff of all
three ranges of D’Ering Wildlife Sanctuary were
our prime support in the field and without their
knowledge & experience sharing, we would
have been helpless. Cheers to all of you! Finally,
we thank Dr. Anupam Sarmah, Head, Assam
Landscapes, WWF-India for his support & all
our other colleagues in Assam & Arunachal
offices for their encouragement. Thanks to
Rishi Sharma, Senior Coordinator, Species, for
his comments and inputs on the report, Yash
Magan Shethia, Associate Director, Species
and Landscapes, WWF-India for reviewing
and Chhavi Jain, Design Officer and Sanna
Nayyar, Communication Officer, WWF-India for
designing the report.

Survey Team:
Rajarshi Chakraborty- Senior Project Officer,
WWF-India Western Arunachal Landscape
(WAL) Programme
Pallabi Chakraborty- Project Officer, WWF-India
North Bank Landscape (NBL)

Citation:
Chakraborty, R., Chakraborty, P., Borah, J. &
Mize, T. 2014. Mammals of D’Ering Wildlife
Sanctuary: A baseline survey report. WWF-India
report.

Cover Picture:
Elephant caught by camera trap
© pallabi chakraborty / WWF-India

© WWF-India / NBL
 Mammals of
D’Ering Wildlife Sanctuary
A Baseline Survey Report
© rajarshi chakraborty / WWF-India

ii mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

contents
1 Introduction  01

2 Study Area 02

3 Objectives 06

4 Methodology 06

5 Results 12

6 Discussion  19

7 Recommendations 28

8 References 30

9 Plates 33

10 Appendix 36
© pallabi chakraborty / WWF-India
executive summary
One of the oldest known wildlife sanctuaries in Arunachal Pradesh, D’Ering Wildlife
Sanctuary, lacks available information on its mammalian fauna, including their
distribution and conservation status. Therefore, the documentation of mammals
in this region was undertaken in the Protected Area for generating a baseline on
species as well as on the status ofthe habitat and vegetation structure, and to assess
the threats in the area needed to formulate better management strategies. With an
area of 190 km2 D’Ering WLS is primarily composed of alluvial grasslands, drained
by the Siang and Sibia rivers. The study mainly consisted of sign surveys for animals,
assessment of habitat characteristics, opportunistic camera trapping and a collection of
secondary data from the forest staff and fringe villagers. The rapid survey was carried
out from November – December 2013. During this period signs of seven mammals
were recorded with elephants having the highest encounter rate, followed by hog
deer, sambar, golden jackal, wild buffalo, wild pig and small cat. Camera trap photos-
captured, the sambar, wild pig, elephant, golden jackal, wild buffalo and the Indian
hare with sambar having the highest relative abundance index (RAI).

70% of the habitat is composed of tall and medium grassland, followed by scrub forest
and evergreen forest. Anthropogenic pressures still pose a threat to the newly reviving
forest after a major depletion of wildlife in the recent past. Although, herbivore
population has bounced back to healthy numbers, absence of large carnivores like
tigers could result in an imbalance in the ecosystem. The habitat, being ideal for
these big cats, holds a potential for the revival of tigers, given that in the past they
were found in the area and was historically connected with larger tiger bearing areas
in the landscape. Thus, a more intensive survey and an analysis on the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats for conservation of this unique wildlife habitat
are recommended.
© Rajarshi Chakraborty / WWF-India
1. Introduction
Arunachal Pradesh is the eastern most state of India, forming part of Eastern
Himalayas and has an area of about 83,743 sq. km. It is very rich in biodiversity as it
falls in the confluence of the Indo-Malayan, Indo-Chinese and Indian bio geographic
realms. Therefore, resulting in a profusion of habitats which in turn leads to high levels
of endemism (Chatterjee et al, 2006), where forests occupy nearly 82% of the total area
(Forest survey of India, 2000). The state’s population is closely associated with the
forest and is dependent on it for livelihood, sustenance and other natural resources.
The local communities also practise hunting and shifting cultivation as part of their
tradition. In addition to forests, the state is well drained with Subansiri, Siang, Dibang,
Siyom, Kameng, Lohit and Tirap rivers. The geography and wide altitudinal variation
in Arunachal, has resulted in spectacularly diverse habitats ranging from tropical
forests to alpine forests, each with their respective characteristic flora and fauna. This
diversity of fauna and flora within the state is protected in 10 wildlife sanctuaries, 2
national parks and 1 biosphere reserve. Among these Protected Areas (PAs) is D’Ering
Wildlife Sanctuary, the present study area.

D’Ering Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS) was initially named Lali WLS from Lali Reserve
Forest in 1978, the oldest declared WLS in Arunachal Pradesh. Subsequently, in 1986,
it was renamed to Daying Ering Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary, after an eminent leader
of the region. Dr. Daying Ering (1921 - 1970) was a prominent Member of Parliament
on two occasions, in 1962 and 1967, following which he was inducted as Deputy
Minister for Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Cooperation. During his
tenure he is remembered for the extraordinary work he did for the state, for which he
came to be known as the ‘architect of modern Arunachal Pradesh’.

Despite the fact that D’Ering is the oldest declared sanctuary in Arunachal Pradesh
and one of the few PAs in Arunachal with a confirmed tiger presence, there exists a
lack of published information on the mammalian fauna, especially large carnivores
in the sanctuary including their distribution and conservation status. Stemming from
recent reports of incidents of hunting and high level of anthropogenic disturbances
in the sanctuary, there was an immediate need to generate baseline information on
the mammals present in the sanctuary, especially large carnivores including tigers.
Along with this, other important baseline information such as type and overall health
of various habitats in the sanctuary and anthropogenic threats were also necessary
to obtain, as this information provides the vital first step for designing effective
management strategies. Thus, the present study attempted to generate a baseline of
mammals and their habitats in D’Ering through a rapid assessment survey.

1
 2. study area
D’ering WLS is located between longitudes 95°22’ E to 95°29’E and latitudes 27°51’
N to 28°5’ N in the East Siang district, covering an area of 190 sq km. It primarily
consists of inter-connected islands formed between the Siang and Sibia rivers which
traverse through the sanctuary forming smaller islands (Fig 1). Borguli, Namsing and
Anchalghat divide the area into 3 wildlife ranges. The altitude ranges from 100-150
m ASL. A tropical type of climate prevails in the region with hot and humid summers
and cold winters. The sanctuary is naturally separated from Assam’s Dibru-Saikhowa
National Park, which is located directly across the river Brahmaputra. It is home to a
number of endangered wildlife species, including the Gangetic river dolphin, Asiatic
wild buffalo, Bengal florican, etc. It is also believed that the one-horned rhinoceros
had inhabited the sanctuary until 1965 (Mize, 2013). The topography and movement
of wildlife populations have been influenced by seasonal floods, which have changed
the course of the river, over time. Uncontrolled fires in the dry season have also been a
major cause of concern for the sanctuary.

The dominant vegetation is composed largely of alluvial grasslands. In addition, the

sanctuary also houses numerous patches of woodlands which are categorised as Assam
alluvial plain semi evergreen forest [2/c-i/ (a)] and some degraded scrublands (Mize,
2013). Palatable grass species like Imperata cylindrica, Phragmites carca, Saccharum
spontaneum are dominant in the area, while Zizyphus mauritiana, Bombax ceiba,
Ficus sp, Gmelina arborea are the major trees characterising the semi-evergreen
woodland. Some invasive species, like Eupatorium adenophorum, Leea acuminata,
Lantana camara, have interrupted and invaded the large undisturbed grassland
and smaller woodland patches. The habitat is ideal for grassland specialist species
including elephants, buffaloes and hog deer. Furthermore, the river provides a good
habitat for many resident and migratory bird and fish species.

A map of the sanctuary, including sign survey and camera trap locations is provided
in Figure 1.

2 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

Fig 1: Map of DÉring WLS with camera trap and major sign survey locations

3
© rajarshi chakraborty / WWF-India

4 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

5
 3. objectives
The first step to plan better scientific management strategies for protection of wildlife
and the forest is to obtain detailed knowledge of the various flora and fauna of the area.
No robust information is currently available on the fauna of D’Ering WLS, especially
carnivores & their prey. Thus the objectives of the present study were:

1. To generate baseline information on the presence and abundance of mammals

in the sanctuary
2. To gather information on various habitat types and vegetation structure within
the Sanctuary
3. To assess the anthropogenic pressures and threats to the sanctuary.

4. methodology
The following tools were used to fulfil the objectives of the present study:

1. Sign surveys
2. Opportunistic camera trapping
3. Interviews with staff and villagers
4. Collection of habitat data

4.1 Sign surveys

The use of indices, particularly those based on counts & measurements of presence
signs have received much attention in recent years to describe the status & trend of
wildlife populations (Pollock et al, 2002). The primary sampling technique of the
present study consisted of large carnivore sign surveys following Jhala et al, 2008.

The locations for conducting the sign surveys were finalized after consultation with
field staff of the forest departments of all three ranges, with a specific focus on overall
coverage of the sanctuary area and sampling of all representative habitat types (Fig 4).

At each location, surveys were conducted in stretches of habitats which presented a

high potential for prey and carnivore movement. Based on the possibility of potential
problems that would impair the identification of animal signs due to substrate quality
and animal movements (Heinemeyer et al, 2008), locating conducive habitat and
substrate types, i.e. along riverbeds, animal trails, loose soil, etc, was prioritzed.
The length of the sign surveys varied from 1 to 5 kms, depending on access and
the topography. Along each survey route, two observers walked on two sides of the
riverbed/ trail searching for animal signs such as pugmarks/ hoof marks/ scats/

6 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

© Pallabi Chakraborty / WWF-India

Fig 2: Sign surveys being pellets/ scratch marks/ scrapes, etc. (Fig: 1) To assess the presence and distribution of
conducted in Namsing different herbivore species in the sanctuary, all herbivore signs along the survey routes
range were also documented. For each independent animal sign, its spatial co-ordinates were
recorded by using a handheld Garmin GPS (Garmin inc., USA), along with information
on the broad habitat features. Care was taken to avoid double-counting of animal signs,
especially regarding wild ungulates, by noting the frequency and distribution of signs
in the habitat and by maintaining a minimum distance of approximately 100 meters
between two individual signs of the same animal in the trail.

7
© Rajarshi Chakraborty / WWF-India

Fig 3: Installation of 4.2 Camera trapping

camera traps
Various studies have shown that camera trapping is an efficient method for
inventorying medium to large terrestrial mammals (Rovero et al, 2013). Camera traps
can aid in the detection of otherwise rare and elusive species and have been used to
generate checklists of fauna in several recent studies, especially in tropical regions.
Opportunistic camera trapping in strategic locations of all three ranges was carried out
using active heat & motion sensor cameras (Reconyx Hyperfire & Cuddeback Attack).
Only one camera trap was installed at every location.

The camera trap locations were selected based on signs of animal presence &
movement as well as the opinions of field staff to maximize the number of mammalian
species photo-captures. The locations followed strategic paths and points such as river
& stream beds, intersections of trails, salt-licks, etc. Covering all representative habitat
types throughout the sanctuary and keeping a minimum distance of one kilometre
between two camera traps, was also emphasized.

Camera trapping

A total of 11 camera traps were installed in all three ranges of the sanctuary, i.e
Borguli, Namsing & Jipghat, consisting of both Cuddeback Attack (High performance
active heat & motion sensor) & Reconyx hyperfire (Semi-covert Infra-red). The
deployment of the cameras was carried out from 2nd to 8th November, 2013. The
details of installations in 3 ranges of the sanctuary have been listed in the Appendix.

Unfortunately, two of the camera traps deployed in Borguli range (DCT-2 & DCT-3)
were stolen on 7th November, 2013 & bringing the effective number of camera traps
active during the survey period down to 9. All camera traps were deployed for 30 days
and then removed for data compilation & analysis.

8 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

© Rajarshi Chakraborty / WWF-India

Fig 4: Collection of habitat 4.3 Interviews

information
Conducting interviews is a common technique in tropical regions for assessing
distribution & sometime trends of carnivores & other species (Belant et al, 2013).
Therefore, semi-structured interviews were also conducted with residents of the
fringe villages of the sanctuary and the field staff, in order to document the presence
of different carnivores and herbivores inhabiting the sanctuary. Information was also
collected on the dependencies of local people on the sanctuary as well as potential
anthropogenic threats.

4.4 Collection of habitat data

During the sign surveys, data on habitat & vegetation characteristics were noted at
every 400 meter intervals along the sign survey routes. Sampling was carried out using
the quadrat method (Bullock, 2006), where information on dominant trees/ shrubs/
herbs present was documented in 5x5, 3x3 & 1x1 meter plots, respectively. Along with
the vegetation data, GPS coordinates of each plot & other bio-physical characteristics
including distance to nearest water body, slope gradient, etc were also noted.
Furthermore, signs of anthropogenic activity including wood cutting/ lopping signs,
direct presence, & livestock signs were also noted for each plot. (Fig: 4)

9
 Data analysis

Interval of independent capture

Depending on the focal species, purpose of trapping and the habitat, various studies
have used different interval lengths between consecutive photographs in a camera trap
to ensure non replication and independence of capture events, ranging from 5 minutes
(Araujo & Chirello, 2005) to 1 hour (Jimenez et al, 2010). For the present purpose,
an interval of 30 minutes (i.e. two consecutive photos were considered independent
events only if their interval is 30 minutes or greater) was used following Jenks et al,
2011.

Photo capture rate

In the case of absence of individual identification of animals and a capture-recapture

framework, studies worldwide have explored the use of a quantitative measure of the
capture rate of each camera, described in various expressions in different literature,
from photographic rate (no of trap days/ photo) (Carbone et at, 2001), camera trap
rate (no of photos/ total trap days) (Bowkett et al, 2007), photo capture rate (no of
photos / 100 trap days) (Dutta et al, 2008 ; Jenks et al, 2011, Li et al, 2009), which in
turn, is used as a measure of relative abundance of a particular species, expressed as a
relative abundance index (RAI) (Carbone et al, 2001; O’Brien et al, 2003).

For the present study, the photo capture rate was defined as –

PCR (Photo capture rate) = (Total no of photos captured of a species/ Total trap
nights) × 100 (Dutta et al, 2008)

Sign survey data

The total number of signs encountered of a species in all sign surveys was sorted,
compiled and then expressed as a relative measure per unit distance, as the sign
encounter rate, i.e. no of signs / km walked.

Habitat data

The habitat data was compiled and expressed through different frequency-based
indices for each habitat & vegetation category

All compilation and subsequent analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel.

10 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

© Rajarshi Chakraborty / WWF-India
© WWF-India

Fig 5 & 6:
Above: An Indian rock python
Below: A golden jackal in the sanctuary
 5. results
The sampling resulted in a total of 212 trap nights. This figure was reached by
including the adjustments for camera trap malfunctions in a few units by extracting the
number of photos between the installation & the last date when a photo was taken to
calculate effective trap nights (Ancrenaz et al, 2012).

A total of 7 mammal species were recorded by the camera traps during the survey
period including all the major herbivore species reported from the sanctuary including
the elephant (Elephas maximus), Wild buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), sambar (Rusa
unicolor), hog deer (Axis porcinus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), Indian hare (Lepus
nigricollis); while the only carnivore species captured was the golden jackal (Canis
aureus).

The photos were sorted according to the independent capture interval and compiled
for calculation of photo capture rate, as previously described.

Hog deer photos were excluded from the analysis as it was difficult to calculate
independent captures due to the extremely large number of hog deer photos captured
over continuous time periods in a majority of the camera traps (approx 2500-3000 in
total)

The following table lists the mammalian species captured in D’Ering Wildlife
Sanctuary in the camera traps and their RAIs.

Number of Percent
independent PCR/ RAI
Sl no Name of species captures (n=212)
1 Sambar (Rusa unicolor) 11 5.19

2 Wild boar (Sus scrofa) 6 2.83

3 Elephant (Elephas maximus) 6 2.83
4 Jackal (Canis aureus) 9 4.25
Table 1: Mammals
captured in D’Ering 5 Wild buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) 7 3.30
WLS and their photo 6 Indian hare (Lepus nigricolis) 6 2.83
capture rates

As indicated in the table, excluding hog deer, sambar had the highest relative
abundance index, followed by the golden jackal & the wild buffalo.

12 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

 Sign survey

Data on signs of each species encountered during the surveys was compiled and
analysed for the calculation of encounter rates, expressed as the no. of signs/ km of
walk. The total distance covered in all three ranges was 23.17 kilometres. A total of 16
species were detected through the sign surveys, consisting of large herbivores such as
the elephant, wild buffalo, sambar, carnivores such as the common leopard (Panthera
pardus), golden jackal, small cat, civet, the endangered pangolin (Manis spp.), and
large reptiles such as monitor lizard (Varanus spp).

The endangered Gangetic river dolphin (Platanista gangetica gangetica) is

reportedly a rare animal in Déring Wildlife Sanctuary and is only occasionally
encountered along relatively undisturbed river stretches. However, during the present
survey, two sightings were, in fact, obtained in the Borguli- Namsing stretch which is
quite encouraging and necessitates further status surveys for conservation of this rare
creature.

The following figure depicts the encounter rates of major mammalian species
documented in D’Ering wildlife sanctuary.

Fig 7: Encounter rate

of major mammals
documented in the sign
surveys

As illustrated, elephant signs were the most abundantly encountered ones, followed
by hog deer & sambar. Among carnivores, golden jackals had the highest encounter
rates, followed by unidentified small cats, civets & the common leopard (0.17).

13
 © Rajarshi Chakraborty / WWF-India

Fig 8: Grasslands in D’ Ering Wildlife Sanctuary

14 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

 Habitat composition

A total of 49 plots were sampled for the collection of information on habitat

composition & structure, which ranged from 104 to 133 meters in elevation.
Topographically, D’Ering primarily consists of interconnected islands and sandbanks
with alluvial grasslands, interspersed with patches of semi-evergreen forest. The
following figure describes the percentage of sampling performed in different habitat
types for collection of habitat data.

Fig 9: Percentage
of sampling done in
different habitat types

A total of 33 plant species were found during the sampling which included 6 grass
species, 8 shrub species, 11 herb species & 8 species of trees. Broadly, the sampled
areas were predominated by alluvial grasslands (Fig: 7) formed by Imperata cylindrica
(Ulu-kher), Saccharum spontaneum (Kohua), etc, interspersed with Zizyphus &
Gmelina trees and a few patches of semi-evergreen forest (Fig: 8) containing trees such
as Dalbergia sisoo, Lagerstromia sp, Embelica sp, and undergrowth dominated by
invasive Leea sp, Michenia sp. and ground cover with various grasses.

20% of the plots were located in semi-degraded & over-grazed scrub forest (Fig:
9) composed of Lantana sp, Eupatorium sp, Zizyphus sp, especially towards the
southern-most parts of the sanctuary in Jipghat range (fig 1).

15
© pallabi chakraborty / WWF-India

Fig 10: Semi-evergreen forest patches in D’Ering Wildlife Sanctuary.

 The following table lists the major vegetation representatives with their frequency-
based indices.

Sl no. Plant species % frequencies

Trees (Relative abundance-%)

1. Zizyphus sp 53

2. Bombax sp 30.6

3. Dalbergia sisoo 6.1

Shrubs (Relative abundance-%)

4. Eupatorium sp 38.7

5. Leea sp 16.3

6. Michenia sp 14.2

7. Lantana sp 16.3

Grasses (Relative frequency-%)

8. Imperata cylindrica 79.5

9. Phragmites kharka 57

10. Saccharum spontaneum 30.6

Table 2: Major plant Herbs (Relative frequency-%)

species and their
frequencies 11. Small ferns 10.2

Anthropogenic disturbance/ presence

Around 30% of the plots sampled had signs of some sort of human presence &
activity; mainly due to localised fishing and grass-collecting while a further 12.2% had
signs of livestock presence.

17
© Rajarshi Chakraborty / WWF-India

Fig 11: Semi-degraded scrubland in Jipghat range

6. discussion
Camera trapping & sign surveys: Comparative effectiveness
in the present context
As indicated in the results, camera trapping resulted in a total of only 212 trap nights
and lacked the coverage initially planned for the exercise. The primary reasons behind
this were two fold; while the theft of two cameras obviously reduced the coverage
from some prime areas in Borguli, additional malfunctioning of at least two other
camera units further prevented the collection of data from several other potential areas
in Namsing range. Therefore, in summation, though the camera traps did provide
encouraging results in terms of recording the mammalian fauna, the overall trapping
exercise was not effective as planned.

Compared to camera trapping, the sign encounter surveys provided more robust
overage of the sanctuary areas for documentation of animal signs. Despite the fact that
not all signs could be conclusively identified (especially of small carnivores) and the
possitiblity that there was a double –counting of signs in spite of taking all precautions,
the results provide a more conclusive picture compared to the camera trap data.

Status & distribution of fauna

Herbivores

Overall, the sampled areas in D’Ering Wildlife Sanctuary contained satisfactory

& encouraging signs of wild herbivore presence, except in disturbed and partially
degraded areas of the southern-most edge, near Jipghat. The following section
provides species-wise observations of the major wild herbivores recorded in D’Ering
Wildlife sanctuary.

1. Asiatic elephant (Elephas maximus)

As observed in figure 5, elephants had the highest encounter rate among all species
recorded during the sign encounter surveys and their presence was also detected in
all three ranges of the sanctuary by the camera traps, including those placed in the
degraded scrub forest near the southern edge (fig 1). Following discussions with the
Divisional Forest Officer, Pasighat, and frontline staff of the sanctuary, it was found
that the elephant herds exhibit strong seasonal and territorial migration patterns
in and out of the sanctuary, using certain corridors across river, stream and forest
patches, linking to adjacent forest areas in Pasighat Reserve Forest, Assam & possibly
also in Dibang valley. Therefore, the sanctuary holds immense importance in terms of
mega herbivore movement and habitat contiguity in the region.

Though signs were abundantly found in all habitat types sampled in the sanctuary,
including degraded scrubland near the southern Assam border, the actual population
status & movement patterns need to be assessed for formulation of effective
conservation strategies to protect this mega-herbivore in the long run.

19
 2. Deer & other wild ungulates

As seen in the results of the sign encounter rate surveys, hog deer had the second
highest sign encounter rates after elephants. Their signs were frequently encountered
in all alluvial grass lands - river patches and interfaces, in both Borguli & Namsing
ranges. Cameras installed in similar habitat types recorded a large number of hog deer
photos, including occasions when there was a continuous movement and presence of
hog deer herds in front of the camera throughout the night, resulting in an enormous
number of captures.

Hog deer are known to have reached to highest densities in floodplain grasslands
(Odden et al, 2005) and they generally avoid closed canopy forests in favour of open
habitats (Peacock, 1933). Though a high number of incidents of hunting of this species
were reported in the past by the frontline staff, presently the population is presumably
recovering and shows encouraging abundance.

Next to hog deer, sambar had the highest number of independent captures in the
camera traps and also a high encounter rate in the sign surveys. Generally, more of
their signs were found in the semi-ever green forest patches in both Borguli & Namsing
ranges. It has been shown that sambar prefer forest with dense vegetation cover
over more open forest (Varman & Sukumar, 1993). Some of the photos captured by
the camera traps show healthy large stags, which is an encouraging sign, considering
preference for sambar as prey by the large carnivores, especially tigers.

The other mega herbivore – the Asiatic wild buffalo, is a critically endangered species
which is distributed only in small packets of the world i.e. Sri Lanka, India & Nepal
(Ram & Acharya, 2011). Encouragingly, signs of buffaloes were also abundant in the
grassland patches and they were detected both in the sign encounter surveys and the
camera traps. One of the camera traps also recorded a photograph of a female wild
buffalo with her young calf in the Borguli range.

Wild pig signs were also detected abundantly in the grasslands & their photos were
captured in the camera traps in Borguli & Namsing. However, all captures showed
single animals and a more detailed survey is needed to establish their abundance.

3. Other species

Signs of the Indian hare (Lepus nigricollis) were found both in the alluvial grasslands
and the degraded scrublands near Jipghat.

Carnivores

Tigers (Panthera tigris) was one of the focal species of the study, and were not
detected in the sampled areas in either sign surveys or camera trapping. The
discussions with the frontline staff of the sanctuary and the fringe villagers also did
not provide an authentic report of their presence for the last five- six years. However,
the staff had encountered tiger signs infrequently until 2007-08. There have been
records of tigers in the adjacent district of Dibang valley, though no conclusion could
be reached regarding the potential corridors linking D’Ering and other areas for
movement of large carnivores.

20 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

© WWF-India
© WWF-India

Fig 12 & 13:

Above: A wild buffalo
Below: A wild boar in the sanctuary
 The common leopard (Panthera pardus), a highly adaptable large cat with a wide
distribution through varied habitat and landscape types in the country, was detected
only in the Borguli range through the sign surveys. The absence of detection in
the camera traps and low amount of other signs indicates the possibility of a low
population density, though a more detailed survey is needed to robustly assess its
status in the sanctuary.

As can be seen in figure 1, the largest patches of semi-evergreen forests exist in

Borguli range, surrounded by river channels, alluvial grassland and abundant water &
prey availability. Therefore, Borguli range and its adjacent areas hold the most promise
regarding the presence of carnivores in the sanctuary.

The most abundant carnivore, quite expectedly, turned out to be the golden jackal
(Canis aureus). It is a versatile predator & opportunistic feeder (Lanszki et al, 2010)
which is found in a wide variety of habitat types. Their presence was confirmed in
all the habitat types surveyed i.e. grasslands, semi-evergreen forest & degraded
scrublands.

Signs of small cat species were also abundantly found in the riverine areas, though
unfortunately, lack of detection in the camera traps did not allow for the identification
of the species. Possible contenders could include the leopard cat (Prionailurus
bengalensis) or the fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus). Other carnivores recorded
included the mongoose (Herpestes sp), civets, otters and interestingly, the highly
endangered pangolin (Manis sp). Among reptiles recorded, tracks of the monitor lizard
(Varanus sp) were found in areas close to the river.

Birds

D’Ering houses a diverse avian population including some endangered and restricted
range species. It is listed as one of the Important Bird Areas of Arunachal Pradesh
(Islam & Rahmani, 2004).The sanctuary’s grasslands and extensive water availability
provide shelter to various waders and migratory waterfowl.

Since the survey was conducted during the pre-winter season, a healthy number of
seasonal migrants had started to arrive in the sanctuary, including ruddy shelduck
(Tadorna ferruginea), great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) as well as long-distance
winter visitors like the common merganser (Mergus merganser) & the black stork
(Ciconia nigra). Numerous passerine species were also recorded in the grasslands and
semi-evergreen forest patches.

Critically endangered raptors including the slender-billed vultures (Gyps tenuirostris)

and the endangered Bengal florican (Houbaropsis bengalensis) were also sighted
during the field survey which, again, shows the significance of the area in terms of
avifaunal diversity. Interestingly, D’Ering forms the easternmost distributional limit
for the Bengal florican and is extremely vital for its conservation in Arunachal Pradesh.

22 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

Habitat: composition & diversity
D’Ering wildlife sanctuary primarily consists of a mosaic of islands and river channels
in the rich Brahmaputra flood plain, sandwiched between the Siang & Sibia rivers.
The dominant floral features consist of alluvial grassland, consisting of species such as
Imperata cylindirca and Saccharum spontaneum.

Across the country, different types of grasslands provide shelter to critically

endangered species of fauna. Similarly, in D’Ering, the grasslands play host to
species such as the hog deer, Asiatic wild buffalo and the Bengal florican, which were
sighted during the field surveys. Grasslands are also the most neglected, abused &
least protected ecosystems in India, which, in most cases do not have a scientific
management plan or strategy (Planning Commission report, 2007). In D’Ering wildlife
sanctuary, though it was learnt that periodical burning of patches of grassland in a
phased manner is practiced by the forest department. It was felt that there needs to
be a more scientific management plan for the grasslands, including assessment of the
grassland-woodland “edges”.

The semi-evergreen forest patches sampled seemed vital for the presence and
movement of both herbivores & carnivores in the sanctuary. Certain forested areas like
Jopung (Borguli range), Namsing Kathuni (Namsing range) & Balun kathuni (Namsing
& Jipghat ranges, fig 1) need to be given additional protection as they are important for
presence & movement of wild ungulates, as is evident by the field observations.

Due to over-grazing and resource exploitation, large areas near Assam boundary in
Jipghat range have turned into extensive scrubland patches primarily consisting of
two dangerous invasives, Lantana & Eupatorium. A thorough assessment needs to be
undertaken rapidly in these areas to check these weeds, followed by a management
plan for their eventual restoration.

The mighty floods of Brahmaputra: re-shaping the sanctuary

Over the years, D’Ering has been subjected to heavy periodical flooding of the
Brahmaputra, which has resulted in a rather mobile and unstable mosaic like
topography. As reported, the last major floods, in 2008-09, created a huge expansion
of the river channels in certain parts of the sanctuary, resulting in now huge expanse
of the main river channel near Namsing & Borguli, not fully depicted in fig 1 due to its
creation before the occurrence of last major floods. The animals of D’Ering also have
had to adapt to changes in connectivity and mammal distribution, at least to some
extent, is influenced by the river and it floods.

Anthropogenic threats & overall conservation status

As reported frequently in the discussions with the frontline staff of the department &
the fringe villagers, D’Ering has had a history of heavy amount of hunting and other
related disturbances in the recent past. Reportedly, hunters had accessed the sanctuary
both from the Assam side and other fringe areas in Arunachal, through the very porous
borders. Deer and other herbivores were reportedly rampantly shot and carried away,
and though there were no concrete reports regarding hunting of large carnivores, it
is likely that it did take place and played a large role in the present demise in their

23
© Rajarshi Chakraborty / WWF-India

Fig 14: Local fishermen populations and probable absence of tigers in the sanctuary area. Such severe depletion
along the Siang near in prey numbers and biomass would have naturally had an acute detrimental effect on
Borguli the predator population, with the probable scenario of some outward migration from
the sanctuary and subsequent increased incidences of conflict and poaching.

DÉring is surrounded and constricted by habitations and expanding agricultural

lands. Although fig 1 shows a dense forest surrounding the sanctuary throughout
the eastern boundary, in reality the forest is relatively degraded and encroached
by both humans and livestock. A growing population residing in the fringe areas
is still partially dependent on the sanctuary areas for fishing and thatch collection.
Furthermore, even connectivity with Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, which at one
time may have been continuous and unbroken, is presently fragmented by islands
with a growing population of recent settlers, in areas like Kabo Chapori. Though the
landscape is continuous with reported tiger-bearing areas in the Dibang valley district
and other areas in the East & West Siang districts, the Sanctuary does not seem to host
tigers at present. The lack of recent reports of livestock damage by carnivores in the
immediate fringe areas of the sanctuary also serves as an indication of poor or no large
carnivore presence and movement.

At present, the enhanced protection and vigilance has resulted in a reported steep
reduction of hunting and other illegal anthropogenic activities inside the sanctuary.
The survey results also show the prey presence to be quite satisfactory, especially
towards the interior areas of the sanctuary, which could signal a recovery from past

24 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

© WWF-India

Fig 15: Cattle recorded in disturbances. Given adequate protection and mitigation of anthropogenic pressures,
Namsing by the camera the prey population can potentially reach the carrying capacity of this ecosystem
traps and provide adequate prey bases for carnivores. This, however, does not indicate a
complete absence of anthropogenic activities and pressure from the fringe villages.
Fishing using indigenous methods is quite common along the main Siang channel
(fig: 10), in both Borguli & Namsing ranges. In these areas, the river itself forms the
boundary between the sanctuary and the rest, and actual demarcation, naturally, gets
blurred.

It must be stated that though temporary camps of fishermen were observed frequently
along the riverbanks between Borguli & Namsing, the methods used by them are
obviously less destructive than organised commercial fishing operations. Since it
also forms means of subsistence for the primarily agrarian economy of the fringe
villages, a carefully managed plan taking into consideration their livelihood situation is
necessary.

Presently, the most serious threat to the sanctuary presumably comes in the form of
livestock grazing. The peculiar topography of the sanctuary, coupled with the porous
boundaries on all sides provides easy access for cattle both from the Assam side as well
as from the adjacent areas of Arunachal Pradesh. Livestock presence was recorded both
through the sign surveys & camera traps in all three ranges of the sanctuary and some
areas like the degraded scrublands of Jipghat, showed obvious impacts of sustained
over–grazing (fig 9). Considerable cattle presence was even recorded in cameras placed

25
 in core parts of the sanctuary, at places which had evidence of presence of a gamut
of wild mammals. Fig 11 shows cattle captured in a camera trap in Namsing range,
installed in a river-side location which had otherwise showed presence of elephants,
sambar & hog deer during the field surveys. The long term impacts of grazing on
grasslands in terms of loss of species, soil erosion & degradation of wildlife habitats has
been well documented in many parts of the world (Fleischner, 1994).

There are numerous cattle camps called “Khuti” situated in very close proximity to
the sanctuary, both on Assam & Arunachal sides, which are the prime sources of the
cattle incursion inside the PA. There needs to be an urgent strategy and action plan
to regulate grazing inside the sanctuary involving multi-stakeholders before further
degradation of the habitats takes place.

There are other occasional anthropogenic activities carried out inside the sanctuary,
mainly involving collection of thatch material, consisting of grasses like Imperata
cylindrica, etc. The collection is strongly seasonal, though and a more detailed study is
required to accurately assess its impact on the region’s biodiversity.

Summing it up for the king: Is it too late?

Though it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that the lack of tiger evidence and
records during the present survey indicates their total absence, the discussions with
the field staff and the villagers with intensive knowledge about the sanctuary does
point toward the same. The last reported confirmed tiger evidence in the sanctuary was
approximately five to six years ago and many have attributed their absence to the heavy
hunting pressure in the recent past. There were, however, a few unconfirmed reports of
occasional movements of tigers into the sanctuary from adjacent forest areas.

D’Ering still houses extensive grasslands and ideal large patches of semi evergreen
forest, especially in areas like Borguli, which appear to be ideal habitats for large
carnivores.

Given the potential connectivity with the surrounding tiger bearing forests and
the different ungulate prey species recorded in this survey, the sanctuary still holds
potential for habitation of tigers and existence of a breeding population, provided that
there is an urgent restoration of connectivity and regulation of livestock grazing. It
would be prudent for a more exhaustive study to follow this rapid survey. A detailed
estimation of abundance of carnivores i.e. tigers and leopards, abundance of wild prey
and abundance of livestock would provide a refined perspective. A detailed SWOT
analysis would also be critical to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats for conservation in this Sanctuary. This data will help in mitigation of threats
and formulating appropriate conservation actions.

26 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

© WWF-India
© WWF-India

Fig 16 & 17:

Above: A sambar captured on a camera trap
Below: A hog deer captured on a camera trap during sunset

27
 7. recommendations
Management

1. Vigilance needs to be further strengthened in the sanctuary in certain

vulnerable areas such as parts of the Jipghat range to curb any attempted illegal
anthropogenic activity inside the sanctuary.
2. The capacity of the frontline staff need to be enhanced regarding detection and
processing of illegal wildlife-related offences and also regarding curbing of
wildlife trade.
3. Logistics for the frontline staff including equipment used for patrolling and
communication should be improved.
4. There should be a more scientific strategy in place for management of the
grasslands, which can be finalized after a rapid assessment of the status &
extent of grasslands in the sanctuary.
5. Emphasis should be placed on monitoring and vigilance of the areas vulnerable
to hunting attempts i.e. waterholes, salt-licks, etc.
6. An urgent action plan to regulate grazing inside the sanctuary should be
constructed and implemented. Presently, uncontrolled grazing represents the
gravest threat to the sanctuary’s biodiversity and there is an urgent need for a
multi-pronged strategy formation initiative involving all stakeholders, including
those from the adjacent state of Assam.

Awareness & outreach

1. Focused awareness campaigns should be conducted in all fringe villages

regarding significance of flora & fauna of D’Ering and how the community could
participate in their conservation.
2. A feasibility assessment should be conducted in the fringe areas for
development of eco-tourism ventures and wildlife-based tourism which could
subsequently involve training and employment of village youths.
3. Articles and news features about D’Ering wildlife sanctuary, its rich biodiversity
and its conservation issues will aid in garnering support from various sectors.
4. Assessments should also be made regarding the livelihood situation in the
fringe villages and options for improvements of the same should be explored.

These studies should be proposed and included in the future management planning
of the sanctuary and can be encouraged by the forest department by involving local
Universities, NGO’s, independent researchers and interested stakeholders.

28 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

 Research

1. Assessment of the status of carnivores and prey population through an intensive

estimation of their abundance and density using camera traps and line transect
methodology.
2. There needs to be an immediate and more intensive assessment of connectivity
with adjacent forest areas in both Assam and other parts of Arunachal Pradesh
involving both field verification assessing presence and movement of large
carnivores & herbivores and analysis of remote sensing data for temporal
changes in land cover.
3. A rapid assessment needs to be undertaken in certain areas bordering Jipghat
& Namsing ranges to check the extent of degraded scrub and possible direct
competition for fodder between domestic livestock and wild ungulates.
4. A status survey needs to be conducted to assess the population status and
distribution of the highly endangered Bengal florican to formulate an effective
conservation strategy.
5. There needs to be a detailed assessment of impacts of anthropogenic activities
in the sanctuary.
6. An intensive camera trapping aimed at establishing the presence of tigers and
abundance estimation of leopards can itself be of great help to establish the
identity of small carnivores and other rare species.

29
 8. references
Ancrenaz, M., Hearsn, A.J., Ross, J., Sollmann, R., Wilting, A. 2012. Handbook for
Wildlife Monitoring Using Camera-traps. BBEC Publication, Sabah Parks and Japan
International Cooperation Agency. Pp 71.

Araujo, A. and Chiarello, A. 2005. Is camera-trapping an efficient method for surveying

mammals in Neotropical forests? A case study in south-eastern Brazil. Journal of
Tropical Ecology 21: 121-125

Belant, J.L., Hofer, H., Wilting, A. 2013. Comparison of methods for detecting &
surveying tropical carnivores. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 28: 109–113.

Bowkett, A.E., Rovero, F., and A.R. Marshall, 2007. The use of camera-trap data to
model habitat use by antelope species in the Udzungwa Mountain forests, Tanzania.
African Journal of Ecology: 1-9.

Bullock, J. M. 2006. Plants, in: Sutherland, W. J. (Eds.) Ecological Census

Techniques: A Handbook, second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp.450.

Carbone, C., Christie, S., Conforti, K., Coulson, T., Franklin, N., Ginsberg, J.R.,
Griffiths, M., Holden, J., Kawanishi, K., Kinnaid, M., Laidlow, R., Lynam, A.,
Macdonald, D.W., Martyr, D., McDougal, C., Nath, L., O’Brien, T., Seidensticker, J.,
Smith, D.J.L., Sunquist, M., Tilson, R., W.N Wan., Shahruddin,. 2001. The use of
photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers & other cryptic mammals. Animal
Conservation 4: 75-79

Chatterjee, S., Saikia, A., Dutta, P., Ghosh, D., Pangging, G., and A.K, Goswami. 2006.
Background paper on Biodiversity Significance of North East India. WWf-India. New
Delhi. Pp. 71.

Dutta, A., Naniwadekar, R., Anand, M.O. 2008. Occurrence and conservation status
of small carnivores in two protected areas in Arunachal Pradesh, north east India.
Small Carnivore Conservation 39: 1-10.

Fleischner, T.L., 1994. Ecological costs of livestock 18. Townsend, J.E. and R.J. Smith
(eds.)., 1977. Grazing in western North America, Conservation Biology 8(3): 629-
644.

Forest Survey of India.2000. The State Forest Report, 1999. FSI, Govt. of India Press,
Dehradun. Pp. 1-133.

Islam, M & Rahmani, A. 2004. Important Bird Areas in India: Priority Sites for
Conservation. Oxford University Press.

30 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

Jenks, K. E., Chanteap, P., Damronchainarong, K., Cutter, P., Cutter, P., Redford, T.,
Lynam, A.J., JoGayle, H. and P.Leimgruber. 2011. Using relative abundance indices
from camera-trapping to test wildlife conservation hypotheses – an example from
Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Tropical Conservation Science Vol.4 (2):113-131

Jhala Y.V., Qureshi, Q., Gopal, R., Sinha, P.R.(eds.). 2008. Status of the tigers, co-
predators, and prey in India.National Tiger Conservation Authority, Goevrnment of
India, Wildlife Institute of India. Dehradun

Jimenez, C.F., Quintana, H., Pachecho, V., Melton, D., Torrealva, J. and G. ello
2010. Camera trap survey of medium & large mammals in a montane rainforest of
northern Peru. Review of Peru Biology 17(2): 191-196.

Heinemeyer, K.S., Ulizio, T.J. and R.I. Harrison. 2008. Natural sign: tracks & scats.
P: 45-74. In: Long, R, Mackay, P., Zielinski, W. and J.C. Ray, Non invasive survey
methods for carnivores. Island Press. Washington.

Lanszki, J., Giannatos, G., Dolev, A., Bino, G. & M. Heltai.2010. Late autumn trophic
flexibility of the golden jackal Canis aureus. Acta Theriologica 55(4): 361-370.

Li, S., Mcshea, W.J., Wang, D., Shao, L., Shi, X. 2010. The use of infrared-triggered
cameras for surveying phasianids in Sichuan Province, China. Ibis 152(2): 299-309.

Mize, T. 2013. Draft Management plan of D’Ering Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary for the
year 2012-13 to 2016-17

O’Brien T.G., Kinnaird, M.F. and H.F. Wibisona. 2003. Crouching tigers, hidden
prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal
Conservation 6: 131-139.

Odden, M., Wegge, P., Storaas, T.2005. Hog deer (Axis porcinus need threatened
tallgrass flood plains: a study of habitat selection in lowland Nepal. Animal
Conservation 8: 99104.

Peacock, E. H. (1933). A Game-Book for Burma and Adjoining Territories. Witherby,

London. UK.

Pollock, K.H., Nichols, J.D., Simons, T.R., Farnsworth, G.L., Bailey, L.L. and J.R.
Sauer. Large scale wildlife monitoring studies, statistical methods for design and
analysis. The Environmetrics: 105-119

Ram, A. & Acharya, K.P. 2011. Status, distribution, threat and habitat pattern
assessment of Asiatic wild water buffalo in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Eastern
Nepal. Annual Report. Pp. 19.

Report of the Task Force on Grasslands & Deserts. Planning Commission Report.
Government of India. Pp. 32.

Rovero, F., Zimmermann, F., Berzi, D., P.Meek. 2013.“Which camera trap type and
how many do I need?” A review of camera features and study designs for a range of
wildlife research applications. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy. Online
first Edition.

31
 Rovero, F., et al. 2010. Camera trapping for inventorying terrestrial vertebrates
Pp: 100-128. In: Eyman, J.,Degreef, J., Hauser, C., Monje, J.C., Samyen, Y.,
Vandenspiegel, D (eds). Vol 8: Manual on field recording techniques & protocols for
all taxa biodiversity inventories.

Report of the Task Force on Grasslands and Deserts, India. Planning Commission.
2007. Planning Commission, Government of India, 2007. Pp. 32.

Varman, K.S. and Sukumar, R . 1993. Ecology of Sambar in Mudumalai Sanctuary,

Southern India. In: International Symposium on Deer of China, Nov. 21-23, 1992,
Shanghai: 273-284.

WAPCOS Limited. Terrestrial Ecology of Project Area, Lower Siang Hydroelectric

Project, Arunachal Pradesh. Pp. 89.

32 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

9. plates

© WWF-India
Fig 18: Elephant captured
in Borguli range

© WWF-India

Fig 19: Wild buffalo

mother & calf captured in
Borguli range

33
 © WWF-India
Fig 20: Hog deer captured
in Namsing range

© WWF-India

Fig 21: Golden jackal

captured in Jipghat range

34 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

 © Rajarshi Chakraborty / WWF-India
Fig 22: Black necked stork

© WWF-India

Fig 23: the survey team at

Namsing

35
10. appendix
Sl no Camera model Date installed Range Remarks

DCT-1 Reconyx hyperfire 02/11/2013 Borguli Trail to riverbed

DCT-2 Cuddeback attack 02/11/2013 Borguli Riverbed

DCT-3 Cuddeback attack 02/11/2013 Borguli Perennial pond

DCT-4 Cuddeback attack 03/11/2013 Borguli Riverbed

DCT-5 Cuddeback attack 03/11/2013 Borguli Grassland trail

DCT-6 Reconyx hyperfire 05/11/2013 Namsing Grassland trail

DCT-7 Cuddeback attack 05/11/2013 Namsing Saltlick

DCT-8 Cuddeback attack 05/11/2013 Namsing Grassland trail

DCT-9 Reconyx hyperfire 06/11/2013 Namsing Riverbed

Appendix I: Details of DCT-10 Cuddeback attack 07/11/2013 Jipghat Woodland trail

camera trap placement in 3 DCT-11 Cuddeback attack 08/11/2013 Jipghat Woodland trail
ranges of the sanctuary:

36 mammals of d’ering wildlife sanctuary

© WWF-India

Fig 24: A Sambar stag, female and a calf gathering to feed in a salt lick, captured by one of the
camera traps inside the sanctuary
© rajarshi chakraborty / WWF-India
 Mammals of D’Ering Wildlife Sanctuary | A Baseline Survey Report
IND
www.wwfindia.org

© 1986 Panda Symbol WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)
WWF-India Secretariat
172-B Lodi Estate
New Delhi 110003
Tel: 011 4150 4814 Fax: 011 4150 4779