Critical assessment of Asiatic ibex (Capra ibex sibirica) for sustainable harvesting in northern areas of Pakistan

Journal Pre-proof Critical assessment of Asiatic ibex (Capra ibex sibirica) for sustainable harvesting in northern areas of Pakistan Shahid Ahmad, Tauheed Ullah Khan, Charlotte Hacker, Li Yang, Ghulam Nabi, Sami Ullah, Kunyuan Wanghe, Sher Shah, Minhao Chen, Sjjad Saeed, Xiaofeng Luan PII:

S2351-9894(19)30597-9

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00907

Reference:

GECCO 907

To appear in:

Global Ecology and Conservation

Received Date: 21 September 2019 Revised Date:

5 January 2020

Accepted Date: 5 January 2020

Please cite this article as: Ahmad, S., Khan, T.U., Hacker, C., Yang, L., Nabi, G., Ullah, S., Wanghe, K., Shah, S., Chen, M., Saeed, S., Luan, X., Critical assessment of Asiatic ibex (Capra ibex sibirica) for sustainable harvesting in northern areas of Pakistan, Global Ecology and Conservation (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00907. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1

Critical Assessment of Asiatic ibex (Capra ibex sibirica) for sustainable harvesting in

2

northern areas of Pakistan

3

Shahid Ahmad1, Tauheed Ullah Khan1, Charlotte Hacker2, Li Yang1, Ghulam Nabi3, Sami

4

Ullah4 , Kunyuan Wanghe1, Sher Shah1, Minhao Chen1, Sjjad Saeed1, Xiaofeng Luan1* 1

5

School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, No.35 Tsinghua East Road Haidian District, Beijing, 100083, P. R. China.

6

2

7

Duquesne University, Department of Biological Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15282

8

3

9

Laboratory of Animal Physiology, Biochemistry and molecular Biology, Department of Life Sciences, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhaung, China

10

4

11

School of Statistics & Mathematics, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310018 P.R China

12 13 14

*

Corresponding Author Correspondent: Xiaofeng Luan*

15

E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +86-13910090393; Fax: +0086-10-62336724

16

Abstract

17

Northern regions of Pakistan support a relatively large population of wild ungulates, the

18

preferred prey of sympatric carnivores. The Asiatic ibex (Capra Ibex Sibirica) is one such an

19

ungulate species which also serves as an important trophy animal. The maintenance of trophy

20

hunting programs rely on estimates of harvestable population sizes derived from rigorous

21

methods. The present study successfully used the double observer-based Capture-Mark-

22

Recapture (CMR) method to produce a reliable and accurate estimate of the Asiatic ibex

23

population in the Community Control Hunting Areas (CCHAs) of Socterabad, Gojal watershed

24

and Khunjerab National Park (KNP). Surveys were conducted from February to March 2018 and

25

from March to April 2019. The total ibex population was calculated to be 1,075 individuals

26

(95%CI±670) with a density of 1.43 ibex/km2 in Gojal watershed, followed by Socterabad with

27

856 individuals (95%CI ±680) and a density of 6.24ibex/km2, and lastly KNP with 463

28

individuals (95%CI ±93.5) and a density of 0.14ibex/km2. A total of 52 herds were sighted in

29

Gojal watershed with mean size of 19 ibex/herd (SE ±3.2). In Socterabad, 28 herds were sighted

1

30

with mean size of 16.07 ibex/herd (SE ±2.4) and in KNP 28 herds were sighted with average

31

recorded size of 16.5 ibex/herd (SE ±3.4). In KNP Sex ratios of female to young, female to

32

yearling and female to male were 1:0.7, 1:0.4, and 1:0.5 respectively. The detection probability

33

of observer two was less than observer one. Ibex biomass recorded is insufficient for current

34

recorded snow leopard (Panthera uncia) and wolf (Canis lupus) population in the area. Our

35

study validates the use of Capture Mark Recapture as a viable tool in discerning ungulate

36

populations, and shows that the population of the Asiatic ibex is viable in the study area, making

37

it suitable for trophy hunting programs but need to modify the hunting law.

38

Key words: Trophy hunting, Double observer, Himalaya, Conservation, Distribution,

39

Abundance and population

2

40

Introduction

41

Ungulates play vital roles in maintaining the vegetation structure, ecosystem composition and

42

nutrient cycling within the environments they inhabit (McNaughton, 1979; Bagchi & Ritchie,

43

2010). Wild ungulates such as blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur), Asiatic ibex and Marco Polo sheep

44

(Ovis ammon polii) provide more than 50% of the biomass consumed by large carnivores, such

45

as, snow leopard (Panthera uncia), wolf (Canis lupus), brown bear (Ursus arctos) and red fox

46

(Vulpes vulpes. (Johansson et al., 2015; Suryawanshi et al., 2017), hence their conservation is

47

essential for sustaining populations of large in mountain. The Asiatic ibex is listed as least

48

concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and receives limited

49

attention, culminating in general unawareness of species’ population trends throughout its range

50

(Roberts, 2005) Asiatic ibex is a subspecies of ibex (Roberts, 2005) found in the mountain

51

ranges of Pakistan, central Asia, Russia, Afghanistan, China (Schaller, 1998) north India, eastern

52

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, north eastern Uzbekistan and northern Tajikistan

53

(Shackleton, 1997; Wilson & Reeder, 2005) with population sizes varying widely across its

54

range (Schaller, 1977). Habitats harboring the species include a range of environments from cold

55

deserts, low mountains to high mountain ridges of three great mountain ranges, including the

56

Karakoram, Himalayas and Hindu Kush ranges. Asiatic ibex do not enter forested areas, though

57

they may seek shelter in hot days. Rather, the species prefers areas with canyons, rocky outcrops,

58

and steep ‘escape’ terrain (Fedosenko & Blank, 2001). Asiatic ibex can live up to 16 to 19 years

59

(Geptner et al., 1961; McNaughton, 1979). They live in small groups that vary considerably in

60

size, sometimes forming herds of over 100 animals, but more frequently 6 to 30 depending on

61

the region (Fedosenko & Blank, 2001). Females reach sexual maturity at 24 months and males at

62

18 months although usually only more established and older males mate (Fedosenko & Blank,

63

2001).

64

In Pakistan, Asiatic ibex are restricted to the northern regions of the Chitral, Kohistan and

65

the northern edge of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Roberts & Bernhard, 1977; Schaller, 1977;

66

Qayyum, 1985). While in the high mountain ranges of Gilgit, Diamir, Skardu, and Ghizer, they

67

are widely distributed with the highest density being along the Barpu Glacier in Gilgit District

68

(Schaller, 1977; Hess, 1990). They are the most common member of the family Caprinae

69

(Schaller, 1977; Hess, 1990) and inhabit relatively dry mountains between 2000 m and 5000 m

70

in elevation (Zafar et al., 2014). The species’ prevalence and occupancy of unique environments 3

71

has made it a common trophy sought by licensed, making it a large draw of tourists and visitors

72

to the area. It is assumed that trophy hunting has substantial potential for conservation (Lindsey

73

et al., 2007b; Loveridge et al., 2007) and serve as tool to conserve specific species by turning

74

human attitudes to protection. Nevertheless, unsustainable harvesting of rare wildlife can lead to

75

extinction.

76

Well managed trophy hunting can benefit conservation in various ways and may in some cases

77

be the best option to ensure the conservation of habitats, species and the support of local

78

residents (Loveridge, 2006; Dickson et al., 2009). The revenue generated from trophy hunting

79

are considered helpful, positively changing human attitudes toward wildlife, reduce human

80

wildlife conflict (Mishra et al., 2001) and enable locally supported conservation strategies. The

81

revenue generated may include, grazing rights, monetary compensation, education, infrastructure

82

development and access to amenities (Hötte & Bereznuk, 2001). Trophy hunting can generate

83

good amount of revenue where limited alternative sources exist whilst conserving large areas

84

(Lindsey et al., 2007b) or in areas which are not suitable for other sustainable uses, such as photo

85

tourism (GOeSSLING, 2000). Trophy hunting may also be more resilient than tourism to outside

86

market forces such as political instability, as hunters continue to visit politically unstable

87

countries (Lindsey et al., 2007a; Bond, 2013) The revenues that can be accrued from trophy

88

hunting can increase incentives to protect habitats (Dickson et al., 2009). Pakistan is actively

89

promoting community based wild resources management as a conservation tool to ensure that the

90

financial benefits derived from trophy hunting go directly to local communities In some cases

91

trophy hunting of less threatened species has contributed to the recovery and conservation

92

threatened and endangered species. (Lindsey et al., 2007a).

93

A trophy hunting program of Asiatic ibex was started in 1995 to provide a platform for local

94

people to be involved in conservation efforts, resulting in the legal annual harvest of many ibex.

95

For example, 261 ibex were hunted between 2000 to 2014 (Nawaz et al., 2016). Previous work

96

suggests that trophy hunting has had positive effect on ibex and other wild ungulates in northern

97

Pakistan (Nawaz et al., 2016) though information on current ibex population sizes are lacking. In

98

addition, conservation efforts aimed at protecting large carnivores have resulting in a larger

99

predator population than was previous present when the trophy hunting program was established.

100

Thus viability of the population of the target species needs to be determined for initiation and

4

101

maintenance of such program. In this work, we aim to assess the current status of Asiatic ibex in

102

northern Pakistan using a double observer-based Capture-Mark-Recapture (CMR) method with

103

the goal of determined if numbers are high enough to support continued trophy hunting. Key

104

variables examined included estimation of population size as well as ratios of females to young,

105

females to yearling and females to males and young proportion in the population. On the basis of

106

these parameters we held the following objectives for this study.

107

1

To estimate population size of Asiatic ibex in northern Pakistan.

108

2

To identify the population structure of Asiatic ibex in the study area.

109

3

To evaluate the viability of the current population of Asiatic ibex to the trophy hunting

110

program.

111

Materials and Methods

112

STUDY AREA

113

The present study was conducted in the northern region of Khunjerab National Park (KNP) and

114

the surrounding Community Control Hunting Areas (CCHA), including Socterabad the Gojal

115

watershed, which was comprised of three CCHAs (Ghulkin, Khyber, and Passu). KNP was

116

established in 1975 to protect Marco Polo sheep and snow leopards and is located in the extreme

117

north of Pakistan (74052 0 33.21 00 –7602 0 26.96 00 E; 3656 0 11.63 00 –3613 0 24.04 00 N)

118

with altitudes ranging from 2,439 m to 4,878 m (Khan, 2011). The fig.1 shows the study area. It

119

lies in the alpine zone having harsh winters with mild autumns and pleasant summers (Brandt et

120

al., 2017). The temperature ranges from below 0°C in October to 27 °C in May. higher

121

precipitation occurs in April and May (18–40 mm) followed by a second peak in August (10 – 26

122

mm) with the driest months being from June to November (<10 mm). KNP is one of the key

123

biodiversity hotspots in the cold desert eco-region of Pakistan. It harbors 24 orders, 54 families,

124

113 genera and 160 species of wild vertebrates, including 11 fish, 2 amphibian, 8 reptiles, and

125

103 avian and 36 mammalian species. Of these, 24 have been listed by the IUCN Red List and

126

CITES appendix as endangered, and vulnerable and low risk species (Ablimit et al., 2010) Key

127

mammal species include Marco Polo sheep , blue sheep, Asiatic ibex, snow leopard, brown

128

bear,( Ursus arctos) wolf golden marmot (Marmota caudata), red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and cape

129

hare (Lepus capensis)(Zafar et al., 2014) Flora includes Artemisia (Artemisia maritima),

5

130

Juniperus (Juniperus excela), Rosa(Rosa webbiana), Hippophae (Hippophae rhamnoide), Betula

131

(Betula utilis), primarily found along stream beds and flat soil patches (Khan, 1996; Khan, 2011;

132

Ahmad et al., 2018). The Park and its peripheries are inhabited by a human population of

133

approximately 5,000 Tajik and Brusho ethnic groups, holding about 7,000 livestock such as Yalk

134

(Bos grunniens) sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) heads (Khan, 2011; Zafar

135

et al., 2014)

136

Survey Method

137

The double-observer survey method is based on the principles of capture mark-recapture

138

theory (Forsyth & Hickling, 1997). This method for population estimation was formerly

139

developed to estimate the detection probabilities of aerial surveys of different wild species (Cook

140

& Jacobson, 1979). Caughley (1974) equation was modified by (Magnusson et al., 1978) to

141

allow for observer difference in the ability to detect the targeted species. Generally, the methods

142

involves two observers scanning for and counting animals concurrently, while ensuring that they

143

do not incite each other on the sighting of animals group. Essentially, the two observers are

144

conducting the survey as independent surveyors. Hence, an individual group of ungulates

145

becomes the unit that is being “marked” and “recaptured” in double-observer technique.

146

This method was used for estimating the Asiatic ibex population (Suryawanshi et al., 2012;

147

Tumursukh et al., 2016; Ahmad et al., 2020). The survey in the CCHAs was conducted from

148

February to March (2018). In KNP the survey was conducted March to April 2019. Survey areas

149

were divided into small blocks which occupied an area less than the daily movement of the

150

Asiatic ibex (Khanyari et al.). Ridgelines were used as boundaries, where less chance of crossing

151

of animals. Two observers (OB_1 and OB_2) each scanned the survey block with either a

152

temporal or spatial separation between them. For temporal separation, both observers adopted the

153

same route along the survey block, but observer OB_2 began trekking the block 30 minutes after

154

observer OB_1. For spatial separation, both observers began trekking the block at the same time,

155

but took different routes within the survey block (Tumursukh et al., 2016). They scans for

156

Asiatic ibex occurred in the morning (6:00 am - 10:00 am) and evening (3:00 pm- 6:00 pm) to

157

coincide with the crepuscular activity budgets of the species (Roberts, 2005). Ibex were observed

158

using binoculars (Pentax 8×25 (XCF)) and spotting scopes (20×60 (Nikon) with GPS (Garmin

159

62s) coordinates taken on site. Groups of ibex were classified when there was more than one 6

160

animal in each zone. Individual identification of ibex was not possible, so age, sex ratio, habitat,

161

time, and coordinates were used to differentiate among the groups seen in two adjacent areas.

162

Upon sighting of an ibex herd, they were first counted and demographically classified on the

163

basis of their horns and body size into the following categories: Young (<1year), Yearling (>1<2

164

years), and Adult Female (>2), Males: Class I (>3years), Class II (>4years), Class III (>5year),

165

and Class IV (>6years) (Schaller, 1977). At the end of the day both observers matched their data

166

and similar groups were identified on the basis of herd size, demographic categories, habitat

167

types and location. Groups that were deemed identical and groups that were deemed different

168

were then classified. Any occurences of double counts were removed from the dataset (Masood,

169

2011)

170

Camera traping

171

Trail cameras have been used to study a wide range of elusive and rare wildlife species (Karanth

172

& Nichols, 1998). Due to logistical constrains and the remote mountainous area of where the

173

study took place, cameras (Bestguarder SG-999M) were deployed/operated only in KNP and

174

soacterabad for visual recording from March to April 2019. The study area was divided into

175

grids of 5×5km dimensions and one camera was placed in each grid to increase trap chances for

176

a total of 25 cameras in operation. Cameras were installed at a height of 40-50cm at locations

177

with signs of recent animal presence, such as fresh animal tracks and feces. To avoid the trigger

178

of false images, cameras were placed facing north to south to avoid direct sunlight vegetation in

179

range of the motion sensor removed (Jackson & Hunter, 1996) Upon activation of the motion

180

sensor, cameras were set to take three photos at 1 second intervals. The cameras’ habitat,

181

substrate, topography, terrain, altitude, and locations were recorded on camera sheets. Global

182

Position System (GPS) was used for altitude and location readings.

183

Analytical approach

184

The estimated population, detection probabilities, mean group size and variance in the group size

185

were calculated by using formulas following (Forsyth & Hickling, 1997)

186

Estimated number of groups

7





− 1……………………………………..1

187

G=

188

Where,

189

S1 = number of group sighted by observer 1

190

S2 = number of group sighted by observer 2

191

B = number of animal group sighted by both observers

192

N = population estimated (rather than the number of individual)

193

Estimated Population size

194

Population size estimated as the number of group in the population multiplied by the mean group

195

size (Choquenot, 1990)

196

Ň =Ĝȗ………………………………………..2

197

Where,

198

Ň = estimated population as the product of estimated number of group Ĝ and mean group size

199

The variance of population estimated, Var (Ň) is the variance of the product of independent

200

random variables (Goodman, 1960)

201

Variance in estimated population:

202

Var(Ň)=Ĝ2Var(ȗ)+ ȗ2var(Ĝ)-Var(Ĝ)Var(ȗ)..................................3

203

Where,

204

Var (Ĝ) = S1S2
S1 + B1 + 1
S2 + B + 1/
B + 12
B + 2S1 = number of group sighted by

205

observer 1

206

S2 = number of group sighted by observer 2

207

B = number of animal group sighted by both observers

208

Confidence interval:



8

209

Confidence intervals were calculated for each population estimated in each conservancy using

210

the following formula: (Forsyth & Hickling, 1997)

211

ұz α/2se (Ň)………………………………………….5

212

Estimating Density:

213

The density was estimated by divided total number animals by the surveyed area (Suryawanshi et

214

al., 2012)

215

 =
    

216

Detection probability

217

We used multinomial regression to determine the detection probability of observers. On the basis

218

of “Walt test” (Yan & Su, 2009) we select the significance variable for our model. According to

219

p-value criteria remove the insignificant variables from the model. The variables intercept and

220

standard deviation are listed in the table.1. There are three possibilities for each herd in the study

221

area: (1) herd sighted by observer OB_1 only, (2) herd sighted by OB_2 only and (3) or sighted

222

by both observers (Unique sighting). We can write our model as model 1

223

Model

224

 p (observer2)  ln   = 0.3534 + 0.1469 ClassI + 0.0707 ClassII + 0.0169 ClassIII − 0.5559 ClassIV − 0.5234 Adult Female − 10.280 Yealings +  p (observer1)  1.8908 Forest + 1.4364 Pasture + 0.9991 Scree + 2.0789 Snow Covered − 0.0003 Height

!/
surveyed area…................6

 p ( Both observers)  ln   = −4.2320 − 0.0431ClassI + 0.2293 ClassII − 0.3552 ClassIII − 0.0783 ClassIV − 0.0101 Adult Female + 0.0483Yealings +  p (observer1)  1.3065 Forest + 10.4276 Pasture + 1.3335 Scree + 0.1883 Snow Covered − 0.0009 Height

225

Further we used the “Walt test” (Yan & Su, 2009) to determine the contribution of each variable

226

to the model. Table 1 Shows the P value for each variable. Only variables which were significant

227

(0.05 ) were retained in the final model, insignificant variables were removed. Finally, the

228

following model is to be considered the most optimal model to predict the detection probabilities

229

of observation. We can write our final model as model 2

230

Model 2

231

 p (observer 2)  ln   = 0.3534 − 0.5234 Adult Female − 10 .280 Yealings + 1.8908 Forest + 1.4364 Pasture + 0 .9991 Scree +  p (observer 1)  2.0789 Snow Covered − 0.0003 Height  p ( Both observers )  ln   = −4 .2320 − 0 .0101 Adult Female + 1.3065 Forest + 1 .3335 Scree + 0.1883 Snow Covered − 0.0009 Height  p (observer 1) 

9

232 233 234

.

235

Results

236

Population Structure of Asiatic ibex

237

A total of 2,090 ibex were counted across all study areas combined (1,075 ibex in Gojal

238

watershed; 463 in the northern range of KNP; 552 in Socterabad). The population estimate of

239

each area using the Capture Mark Recapture method (Forsyth & Hickling, 1997) calculated

240

population numbers to be 473 ±92.34 in KNP, 1567±670 in Gojal watershed, and 874±680 in

241

Socterabad. The detection probabilities of both observers are shown in Table. 2, while the unique

242

OB_1, OB_2 and sighting records are shown in Fig. 2 Overall herd composition and male age

243

classes are shown in Fig.4. The Gojal watershed is comprised of three CCHAs (Ghulkin, Passu,

244

and Khyber). As these three CCHAs are contiguous, they were considered as one congruent

245

study area. Each of the three CCHAs was divided into various blocks for scanning. Ghulkin was

246

divided into two blocks, Passu into three and Khyber into five. A total of 210 animals were

247

sighted in Passu (in both blocks i.e., 107 in Passu Gar and 103 in Sani Gar) in 13 herds. The

248

mean (16±2.9) herd size range was recorded 4-37. The demographic composition of the

249

population includes 36.7% female, 29.5% male, 19% yearling and 14.8% young. A total of 73%

250

animals were sighted in female herds followed by mixed (26.66%) and male (15.38%)

251

respectively.

252

In CCHA Khyber a total of 233 animals (70 in Lask, 53 in Show Gerab Gar, 22 in Khyber

253

village, 8 in Bar nallah and 80 in Khyber) comprised of 15 herds were sighted. The mean herd

254

size was 10.7±1.9 individuals ranging from 3 to 25 individuals. The demographic percentage of

255

the total ibex population was as followings: 52% female, 37% young 7% male, and 4% yearling.

256

The total of 71 % animals was sighted in female herds while 29% were sighted in male herds.

257

A total of 632 animals were sighted (301 in Batura, 178 in Abdigar, and 153 in Passu Village) in

258

24 herds, with the mean herd population size (26.3±5.46, range 4-88) were sighted in CCHA

10

259

Passu. There were 31.2% female, 41% male, 23.3% young and 4.4% yearling in the recorded

260

population. However in CCHA Passu 65% were in mix group, meanwhile 21% were females and

261

3% were in male group.

262

CCHA Socterabad was divided into five blocks. 452 animals were sighted (in all blocks i.e., 64

263

in Socterabad, 164 in Abgar Chee, 96 in Past Rich,33 in Galapan and 93 in Shaskat) in 28 herds,

264

with the mean herd size (16.07±2.4, ranging from 3 to 60). The demographic composition of the

265

population includes 48% female, 26.2% male, 22.4% young and 3.3% yearling. The female:

266

young, yearling and female: male ratios have been shown in Table 3.2. In CCHA Socterabad

267

60% were in mix group, while 26% were in females’ group and 13% were in male group.

268

Khunjerab National Park was divided into nine blocks. A total of 463 animals were sighted (141

269

in Khunjerab pass, 22 in Koksil, 65 in Patkish, 10 in Barkhun, 17 in Tung Rich, 21 in Furzin

270

Dur, 6 in Troqan, 65 in Karchanai and 116 in Dhee block) in 28 herds. The mean herd size of

271

(16.5 ± 3.14), ranging from 2 to 66. The demographic composition of the population includes

272

37% female, 25.7% male, 22% young and 15.3% yearling. The female population consist of:

273

young, female: yearling and female: male ratios have been shown in Table 4. In KNP 91% were

274

in mix group, while 9% were in females group. There was no male group observe in this

275

watershed.

276

The density was estimated for each study site. The highest density was observed in Gojal

277

watershed (D= 1.4 ibex/km2), followed by Socterabad (1.32 ibex/km2) and KNP (D= 0.4 ibex/

278

km2). The total estimated density has been shown in Fig. 3. Figure 3 showed that Asiatic ibex

279

avoid forest. Our model also showed that forest have lowest contribution in the model.

280

The confusion matrix showed that 33% data was miss-classified, while 67% observation was

281

correctly classified. The analysis shows that the detection probability of observer one was higher

282

than observer two (0.779 and0.104 respectively). (For detail see Appendix A. Table 1)

283

Occurrence of predators in study area.

284

Camera traps were deployed for 45 days which result into 46492 photos consisting of snow

285

leopards and wolves, bird’s species and false images. Camera traps captured snow leopards in 16

286

out of 25 cameras and wolf were capture in 5 cameras. Fig.4 show individual snow leopard

11

287

capture in study area. Individual identification was performed via examination of unique

288

morphological characteristics, such as coat color variation and spotting patterns. We identified a

289

total number of 13 unique snow leopard individual and four wolves from photographs (Table 4)

290

Discussion

291

The Asiatic ibex is Pakistan is most abundant wild ungulate species (Hess, 1990). It serves as a

292

criticaly important prey item for a number of carnivore species, including snow leopard,

293

Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and has great importance in maintaining ecosystem function (Bagchi

294

& Ritchie, 2010). Prior to the inception of trophy hunting in 1995, ibex were rampantly poached

295

in Gilgit-Baltistan (Shackleton, 2001). This has subsequently subsided, (Jackson & Hunter,

296

1996) leading to increases in the number of Asiatic ibex. Rigorous population monitoring is vital

297

for evaluation of conservation program effectiveness, and determination of species conservation

298

in the context of trophy hunting (Singh & Milner-Gulland, 2011).

299

Population estimates of wild ungulates are difficult to obtain due to their occupancy of

300

remote high altitude mountainous environments, which add considerable logistical and financial

301

constraints (Singh & Milner-Gulland, 2011). Hence, a robust monitoring technique that can be

302

feasibly deployed at low costs is much needed. The double observer based CMR technique

303

developed by (Suryawanshi et al., 2012) is an appropriate method to meet the challenges in

304

monitoring species in such habitats, and has been successfully used in the Himalayas

305

(Choquenot, 1990) and the Tost local protected in Mongolia (Tumursukh et al., 2016). We tested

306

this statistically robust and recently developed method for first time in Pakistan, and found it

307

promising for the monitoring of Pakistani ungulates.

308

The detection probabilities for OB_1 in KNP, Gojal watershed, Socterabad conservancies

309

were 0.944, 0.538 and 0.333 respectively. For OB_2 the detection probabilities were 0.607, 0.12,

310

and 0.038 respectively. Lower detection probability for OB_2 versus OB_1 was also noted by

311

(Tumursukh et al., 2016). This may be due to the OB_1 inciting retreat behavior of ibex, as the

312

species is sensitive to human presence (Suryawanshi et al., 2012). During the current study, a

313

total of 2,090 Asiatic ibex were estimated in the study area. Virk (1999) counted 152 ibex in

314

Khyber valley which falls in the Gojal watershed. Shafiq and Ali (1998) estimated 1,605 ibex

12

315

population in KNP. Khan (2012) reported 491 ibex from Khunjerab, while Zafar et al. (2014)

316

reported 368 ibex from Central Karakoram National Park. These studies were conducted in small

317

areas, if extrapolate the results may support our study because current study area is more than

318

previous work.

319

The highest density of ibex was estimated in the Gojal watershed at 1.4 ibex/km2 followed by

320

Socterabad 1.32 ibex/km2, and KNP 0.4 ibex/km2. This is in parallel with previous research work

321

carry out in the same study area, as well as in surrounding countries. In northern Pakistan . Khan

322

(2012) reported 0.4-0.7 ibex/km2 in Khunjerab and Taxkorgan, while in Central Karakoram

323

National Park (CKNP). In India, Fox et al. (1992) estimated a density 0.5-0.6 ibex/km2 in

324

southwestern Ladakh and 0.8-1.2animal/km2 in Central Ladakh respectively.

325

Zafar et al. (2014) recorded ratios across three successive years in CKNP. In 2011, the ratio of

326

female to male was 1:1, female to yearling 1:0.52, and female to young 1:0.7. In 2012 the ratios

327

were 1:0.87, 1:0.58, and 1:0.77, while in 2013 they recorded ratios of 1:1.3, 1:0.47, and 1:0.84

328

respectively.

329

between the two datasets may be due to factors such as food quality and availability, climatic

330

conditions and habitat. For example, previous research has shown that females living in harsh

331

and unfavorable conditions tend to produce more male offspring, leading to a sex bias towards

332

male (Hoefs & Nowlan, 1994). Lower numbers of males in population in KNP and Socterabad

333

was opposed to that found in Khan et al. (2016) study. May be due to higher mortality rate of

334

young males, as older males tend to die after rutting season due to weakness, males are more

335

prone to disease and hunter also select big trophy.

These results are similar with our results. Slight differences in the sex ratio

336

The mean herd size of 19.3±3 (range3-88) was recorded in Gojal watershed followed by

337

KNP with 16±3.14 (range 2-66), and Socterabad with 16.07±2.4 (range 3-60). Previous studies

338

have also examined ibex herd size, recorded a mean herd size in Tuva mountain (Russia) to be

339

5.4 (range 1-35), 11.2 (range 2-27) in Sayan mountain (border between Mongolia and Russia),

340

and 14-24 (rang 1-11) in Tien Shan (border between China and Kyrgyzstan). Zavatskiy (1989)

341

reported that herd size reached up to 30 individuals in the Pamir mountain range in west Sanjay

342

(south Siberia) and during rut season reported herd of 150 animals. The larger herd sizes

343

observed in this study could have to do with the geography and presence of predators. The study

13

344

area olds a narrow valley with few grazing sites and highly suitable snow leopard habitat. Larger

345

herd sizes reduce the chances of an individual ibex being target by a carnivore via both auditory

346

signals in attracting the attention of the group and by diluting the likelihood that any one

347

particular individual is selected for a kill. The maximum number of animals was observed first in

348

mixed herds followed by female and then male herds. Mixed herds were more common than

349

male and female herds, a pattern also observed in Spanish ibex (Alados, 1985) and Ladakh urial

350

(Schaller, 1977). The reason may be the survey was conducted in rut season.

351

Zafar et al. (2014) also reported maximum number of animals in mixed herds in CKNP.

352

Asiatic ibex like other Caprinae member is very gregarious, living in different types and size of

353

herds also depends on various factors like habitat type (Alados, 1985), population size and

354

season (Raman, 1997). The distribution, density and population structure of ungulates varied

355

from site to site in our study area. Ibex had higher density in Gojal watershed, while low density

356

was observed in some areas such as Ghulkin and KNP. This may be due to barren habitats,

357

offering fewer food resources. The greatest number of trophy sized males was seen in Passsu and

358

Socterabad, which is likely due to the presence of more high quality forage, decreased

359

anthropogenic disturbances, and decreased predator numbers. The absence of trophy sized males

360

in Ghulkin and Khyber could be a result of male segregation from females after the rut season

361

(Ruckstuhl & Neuhaus, 2002)

362

The ibex biomass recorded from out study area was higher than that of previous studies.

363

Khan et al. (2016) reported 132 kg km-2 biomass from study area, while we reported 201 kg -2.

364

However, Khan et al. (2016) surveyed a smaller area of 1186.7 km2 compared to ours at 2687.23

365

km2 and used a different survey methodology and blocking system. Using Jackson and Hunter

366

(1996) estimation for food requirements of the adult snow leopards (1.3–2.0 kg/day),

367

approximately 20 to 30 sheep or goat species are required to support an adult snow leopard

368

annually. In regards to ibex biomass across study sites, snow leopard biomass was higher in

369

KNP, while ibex was higher in Socterabad. Socterabad has a relatively high occurrence of human

370

activity, which may be driving snow leopards out of the area due to their elusive behavioral

371

nature (Nyhus et al., 2016). Without this predator in the area, ibex numbers subsequently

372

increase.

14

373

Our findings of available ibex biomass indicate that the study area approximately 70

374

adult snow leopards can be support. Following (Jackson & Hunter, 1996) estimation for food

375

requirements of the adult snow leopards (1.3–2.0 kg day-1) approximately 600–900 kg of

376

biomass is required to support an adult snow leopard for one year and about 20–30 large

377

ungulates (sheep/goats) annually. The available biomass can hardly support 13-14 snow leopards

378

per 100 km2 for one year, meaning that the rest of the biomass required by other snow leopards

379

(if number >14) and other carnivores is met from the domestic stock being grazed in the study

380

area (Khan, 1996). Currently many snow leopard conservation efforts have been undertaken,

381

leading to an increase in the country’s current population of snow leopards with the current

382

estimates being ~250 (McCarthy et al., 2016). Apart from predation by snow leopards, wolves

383

are a common predator of the species and even large birds of prey, such as the golden eagle

384

(Aquila chrysaetos) can attack yearlings, leading to a reduction in ibex biomass. To figure out

385

the population estimate of large carnivore especially snow leopard is huge project which is out of

386

scope of this study. The capture snow leopard and wolf in the current camera trapping does not

387

show the approximate density of carnivores. The anecdotal information from ex- hunter, local

388

people game watcher showed that snow leopard number is increasing in the study area. Apart

389

from the natural predator trophy hunting in the study area is another thread to the species

390

population. Our results are approximately parallel with the previous research work by khan et al

391

(Khan et al., 2016). Through the guidelines developed by IUCN, a quota of one trophy has set,

392

based on two consecutive winter surveys provide a population of at least 50 animals with a

393

minimum of four trophy sized males.

394

Under these guidelines the current population is stable and can support further trophy

395

hunting in the area with some amendments such as currently, hunting permits in northern

396

Pakistan are not area-bound, leading to open access and lack of sustainable management of game

397

populations. This practice may disturb the ibex population structure. The hunting law should be

398

amending that hunting should be only in assigned areas, and hunters have to obtain permits for

399

the specific area. There should periodic population Census surveys in the study area.

400

Funding

401

This study was jointly supported by grants from The Ministry of Science and Technology

402

of the People’s Republic of China (research and application of key techniques on

15

403

endangered species conservation and prediction of forest fire and pests in response to

404

climate change, 2013BAC09B00) and National forestry and grassland administration,

405

(management and improvement of monitoring in national park, 2018HWFWBHQLXF-

406

01).

407

Acknowledgment

408

I owe my sincere thanks to wildlife department Gilgit Baltistan for providing us

409

permission for survey in the study area. I own my special thanks to Mr. Usman Ahmad

410

(Commissioner Gilgit Baltistan) for has sincere cooperation in granting NOC for surveys.

411

Thanks to Mr. laiqat ali (Khunjerab National Park, watcher) for his help during field survey.

412

References

413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440

Ablimit, A., Hai, Y., Wang Yun, Y., Tao, S., Chen, J. & Zhou, J. (2010) Invertebrate fauna in Khunjerab National Park of Pakistan. Chinese Journal of Wildlife, 31, 232-237. Ahmad, A., Liu, Q.-J., Nizami, S., Mannan, A. & Saeed, S. (2018) Carbon emission from deforestation, forest degradation and wood harvest in the temperate region of Hindukush Himalaya, Pakistan between 1994 and 2016. Land use policy, 78, 781-790. Ahmad, S., Yang, L., Khan, T.U., Wanghe, K., Li, M. & Luan, X. (2020) Using an ensemble modelling approach to predict the potential distribution of Himalayan gray goral (Naemorhedus goral bedfordi) in Pakistan. Global Ecology and Conservation, 21, e00845. Alados, C. (1985) Group size and composition of the Spanish ibex (Capra pyrenaica Schinz) in the Sierras of Cazorla and Segura. The biology and management of mountain ungulates, 134, 147. Bagchi, S. & Ritchie, M.E. (2010) Herbivore effects on above-and belowground plant production and soil nitrogen availability in the Trans-Himalayan shrub-steppes. Oecologia, 164, 1075-1082. Bond, I. (2013) Private land contribution to conservation in South Africa. In Parks in transition pp. 46-79. Routledge. Brandt, J.S., Allendorf, T., Radeloff, V. & Brooks, J. (2017) Effects of national forest-management regimes on unprotected forests of the Himalaya. Conservation biology, 31, 1271-1282. Caughley, G. (1974) Bias in aerial survey. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 921-933. Choquenot, D. (1990) Rate of increase for populations of feral donkeys in northern Australia. Journal of Mammalogy, 71, 151-155. Cook, R.D. & Jacobson, J.O. (1979) A design for estimating visibility bias in aerial surveys. Biometrics, 735-742. Dickson, B., Hutton, J. & Adams, W.A. (2009) Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods: science and practice, John Wiley & Sons. Fedosenko, A.K. & Blank, D.A. (2001) Capra sibirica. Mammalian species, 2001, 1-13. Forsyth, D.M. & Hickling, G.J. (1997) An improved technique for indexing abundance of Himalayan thar. New Zealand journal of ecology, 21, 97-101. Fox, J.L., Sinha, S.P. & Chundawat, R.S. (1992) Activity patterns and habitat use of ibex in the Himalaya Mountains of India. Journal of Mammalogy, 73, 527-534.

16

441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488

Geptner, V., Nasimovich, A. & Bannikov, A. (1961) Mlekopitayushchie Sovetskogo Soyuza: Parnokopytnye i neparnokopytnye. Mammals of the Soviet Union: Artiodactyls and Perissodactyls), Moscow …. GOeSSLING, S. (2000) Tourism–sustainable development option? Environmental Conservation, 27, 223224. Goodman, L.A. (1960) On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American statistical association, 55, 708-713. Hess, R. (1990) Siberian ibex (Capra ibex sibirica). GrzimekVs Encyclopedia of Mammals Volume, 527528. Hoefs, M. & Nowlan, U. (1994) Distorted sex ratios in young ungulates: the role of nutrition. Journal of Mammalogy, 75, 631-636. Hötte, M. & Bereznuk, S. (2001) Compensation for livestock kills by tigers and leopards in Russia. Carnivore Damage Prevention News, 3, 6-7. Jackson, R.M. & Hunter, D.O. (1996) Snow leopard survey and conservation handbook, International Snow Leopard Trust. Johansson, Ö., McCarthy, T., Samelius, G., Andrén, H., Tumursukh, L. & Mishra, C. (2015) Snow leopard predation in a livestock dominated landscape in Mongolia. Biological Conservation, 184, 251258. Karanth, K.U. & Nichols, J.D. (1998) Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology, 79, 2852-2862. Khan, A. (1996) Management Plan for Khunjerab National Park. WWF-Pakistan, Lahore, 19-36. Khan, A. (2011) Significance, history and future of Sino-Pak collaboration for the socio-ecological development of Karakoram Pamir landscape with focus on adjoining protected areas-Towards Developing the Karakoram Pamir Landscape. Process Document for Discussion. ICIMOD, Nepal, 60. Khan, B. (2012) Pastoralism-wildlife conservation conflict in climate change context: A study of climatic factors influencing fragile mountain ecosystem and pastoral livelihoods in Karakoram-Pamir trans-border area between China and Pakistan. 万方数据资源系统. Khan, B., Ablimit, A., Khan, G., Jasra, A.W., Ali, H., Ali, R., Ahmad, E. & Ismail, M. (2016) Abundance, distribution and conservation status of Siberian ibex, Marco Polo and Blue sheep in KarakoramPamir mountain area. Journal of King Saud University-Science, 28, 216-225. Khanyari, M., Shanti, J., Alexander, X.L., Suryawanshi, K., Odonjavkhlan, C. & Khara, A. D OUBLEOBSERVER SURVEY MANUAL. Lindsey, P.A., Frank, L., Alexander, R., Mathieson, A. & Romanach, S. (2007a) Trophy hunting and conservation in Africa: problems and one potential solution. Conservation biology, 880-883. Lindsey, P.A., Roulet, P. & Romanach, S. (2007b) Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation, 134, 455-469. Loveridge, A., Searle, A., Murindagomo, F. & Macdonald, D. (2007) The impact of sport-hunting on the population dynamics of an African lion population in a protected area. Biological Conservation, 134, 548-558. Loveridge, A.J. (2006) Does sport hunting benefit conservation? Key topics in conservation biology. Magnusson, W.E., Caughley, G. & Grigg, G.C. (1978) A double-survey estimate of population size from incomplete counts. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 42, 174-176. Masood, A. (2011) Kashmir markhor (Capra falconeri cashmiriensis) population dynamics and its spatial relationship with domestic livestock in Chitral Gol National Park, Pakistan. Doctoral dissertation, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. McCarthy, T., Mallon, D., Sanderson, E.W., Zahler, P. & Fisher, K. (2016) What is a snow leopard? Biogeography and status overview. In Snow leopards pp. 23-42. Elsevier.

17

489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534

McNaughton, S. (1979) Grassland-herbivore dynamics. Serengeti: dynamics of an ecosystem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 19796, 46-81. Mishra, C., Prins, H.H. & Van Wieren, S.E. (2001) Overstocking in the Trans-Himalayan rangelands of India. Environmental Conservation, 28, 279-283. Nawaz, M., Ud Din, J., Shah, S. & Khan, A. (2016) The trophy hunting program: enhancing snow leopard prey populations through community participation. Snow Leopards: Biodiversity of the World: Conservation from Genes to Landscapes, 220-229. Nyhus, P.J., McCarthy, T. & Mallon, D. (2016) Snow leopards: biodiversity of the world: conservation from genes to landscapes, Academic Press. Qayyum, S. (1985) Wildlife in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Wildlife Wing, Forest Department, Govt. of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad. Raman, T.S. (1997) Factors influencing seasonal and monthly changes in the group size of chital or axis deer in southern India. Journal of Biosciences, 22, 203-218. Roberts, T.J. (2005) Field guide to the small mammals of Pakistan, Oxford Univeristy Press. Roberts, T.J. & Bernhard (1977) The mammals of Pakistan. Ruckstuhl, K.E. & Neuhaus, P. (2002) Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypotheses. Biological Reviews, 77, 77-96. Schaller, G. (1998) Wildlife of the Tibetan Steppe. University of Chicago, Chicago. Wildlife Conservation Society & Tibetan Plateau Project, A Petition to List the Tibetan Antelope. Schaller, G.B. (1977) Mountain monarchs. Wild sheep and goats of the Himalaya, University of Chicago Press. Shackleton, D. (2001) A review of community-based trophy hunting programs in Pakistan, IUCN, the World Conservation Union. Shackleton, D.M. (1997) Wild sheep and goats and their relatives, IUCN. Shafiq, M. & Ali, A. (1998) Status of large mammal species in Khunjerab National Park. Pakistan Journal of Forestry, 48, 91-96. Singh, N.J. & Milner-Gulland, E. (2011) Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia: current constraints and future potential. Oryx, 45, 38-49. Suryawanshi, K.R., Bhatnagar, Y.V. & Mishra, C. (2012) Standardizing the double-observer survey method for estimating mountain ungulate prey of the endangered snow leopard. Oecologia, 169, 581-590. Suryawanshi, K.R., Redpath, S.M., Bhatnagar, Y.V., Ramakrishnan, U., Chaturvedi, V., Smout, S.C. & Mishra, C. (2017) Impact of wild prey availability on livestock predation by snow leopards. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170026. Tumursukh, L., Suryawanshi, K.R., Mishra, C., McCarthy, T.M. & Boldgiv, B. (2016) Status of the mountain ungulate prey of the Endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia in the Tost Local Protected Area, South Gobi, Mongolia. Oryx, 50, 214-219. Virk, A.T. (1999) Integrating wildlife conservation with community-based development in Northern Areas Pakistan. Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (2005) Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, JHU Press. Yan, X. & Su, X. (2009) Linear regression analysis: theory and computing, World Scientific. Zafar, M., Khan, B., Khan, E., Garee, A., Khan, A., Rehmat, A., Abbas, A.S., Ali, M. & Hussain, E. (2014) Abundance Distribution and Conservation of Key Ungulate Species in Hindu Kush Karakoram and Western Himalayan (HKH) Mountain Ranges of Pakistan. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 16.

18

535 536 537

Zavatskiy, B. (1989) The Siberian ibex of the west Sayan. Ecology, morphology, utilization and conservation of the wild ungulates (TB Sablina, ed.). All-Union Theriological Society Press, Moscow, USSR, 2, 1-340.

538

19

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

.

Figure 4.

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Table 1:

Odd

 p(Yi  observer 2)     p(Yi  observer1) 

Variables

Estimates

Standard Error

Exp(β)

p-value

Intercept

0.3534

0.0137

1.4239

0.0000 < 0.05

Class-1

0.1469

0.3687

1.1582

0.6903 > 0.05

Class-2

0.0707

0.3829

1.0733

0.8534 > 0.05

Class-3

0.0169

0.1188

1.0170

0.8867 < 0.01

Class-4

-0.5559

0.3397

0.5736

0.1017 > 0.05

Adult Female

-0.5234

0.1791

0.5925

0.0034 < 0.05

Yearling

-10.280

0.0003

0.0000

0.0000 < 0.05

Habitat Forest

1.8908

0.0481

6.6247

0.0000 < 0.05

Habitat Pasture

1.4364

0.1178

4.2055

0.0000 < 0.05

Habitat Scree

0.9991

0.0481

2.7158

0.0000 < 0.05

Habitat Snow Covered

2.0789

0.0326

7.9957

0.0000 < 0.05

Height

-0.0003

0.0015

0.9997

0.0244 < 0.05

0.0000 < 0.05

 p(Yi  Both observers)     p(Yi  observer1) 

Intercept

-4.2321

0.0122

0.0000

0.7955 > 0.05

Class-1

-0.0431

0.1661

0.9578

0.2746 > 0.05

Class-2

0.2293

0.2099

1.2577

0.1310 > 0.05

Class-3

-0.3552

0.2353

0.7010

0.3242 > 0.05

Class-4

-0.0783

0.0794

0.9247

0.7847 > 0.05

Adult Female

-0.0101

0.0369

0.9900

0.6204 > 0.05

Yearling

0.0483

0.0097

1.0495

0.0000 < 0.05

Habitat Forest

1.3065

0.1218

3.6932

0.2070 > 0.05

Habitat Pasture

0.4276

0.3388

1.5336

0.0000 < 0.05

Habitat Scree

1.3335

0.1467

3.7943

0.0000 < 0.05

Habitat Snow Covered

0.1883

0.0390

1.2072

0.0000 < 0.05

Height

0.0009

0.0001

1.0009

0.0000 < 0.05

Table 2: Variable

Entire study area

Groups sighted by both observers

28

Groups sighted by observer one only

78

Groups sighted by observer two only

9

Estimated number of groups

139.2

Mean group size

17.09

Estimated population

2376

Variance in mean group size

0.22

Variance in estimated number of Groups

113.13

Variance in estimated population

37353

95% Confidence interval

383.7

Detection probability Observer 1

0.779

Detection probability Observer 2

0.104 2

Estimated Density (animals per km )

0.8

Table 3: Ratio

Female : Young

Female : Yearling

Female : Male

KNP

1:0.7

1:0.4

1:0.5

Socterabad

1:0.6

1:0.07

1:0.5

Gojal watershed

1: 0.76

1:0.2

1:0.9

Table 4: Observer1 Observer2 Both observer M_Observer1

60

6

20

M_Observer2

8

8

1

M_ Both observer 4

1

9

Confusion matrix. Oberver1, observer2 and both= actual observation by observer while M_Observer1, M_Observer2 and both Observer = model prediction.

Table 5: CCHAs

Area_km2

AI_BM

SL_BM

W_BM

KNP

1142.5

28

0.525

0.5

Gojal

898.12

82.02

0

Socterabad

646.72

91

0.12

0.12

Total

2687.34

201

0.87

0.645

Note: average live weight: Ibex 68.58 kg (Roberts, 1999). Snow leopard 38-75kg and wolf 28-40kg.(Smith et al. 2010). AI_BM=Asiatic ibex biomass, SL_BM=Snow Leopard biomass, W_BM= Wolf biomass

Conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest between authors