APPENDIX S2
SUPPLEMENTARY RESULTS
Table S2. Estimated number of tigers that can be supported based on the scaling relationship of Karanth et al. (2004).
THB
THB I
Tiger population sizea
2 (2-7)
Prey classificationb
Management type
All prey
Non-avoided prey
Principal prey
Preferred prey
Multiple-use forests
23.15
20.42
12.02
14.3
PAs with settlements
23.87
22.19
15.98
13.23
Inviolate PAs
50.27
48.37
37.65
21.31
Prey Density
32.43
30.33
21.89
16.28
Tiger Density
6.49
6.07
4.38
3.26
Tiger Numbers
THB II
a
225 (199-256)
82
77
55
41
Multiple-use forests
24.06
18.06
13.97
7.26
PAs with settlements
30.6
27.47
21.58
10.36
Inviolate PAs
59.03
56.92
49.73
15.48
Prey Density
37.9
34.15
28.43
11.03
Tiger Density
7.58
6.83
5.69
2.21
Tiger Numbers
299
270
225
87
Known population sizes for THB I and II, based on photographic capture-recapture studies (Jhala et al., 2011; Harihar & Pandav, 2012)
b
All prey: the entire wild ungulate prey assemblage (chital, sambar, wild pig, red muntjak, goral, nilgai)
Non-avoided prey: We estimate potential tiger densities using densities of sambar, chita, wild pig and red muntjac. This definition is based on
Hayward et al (2012)’s classification of prey species. While smabar and wild pig are preffered, Hayward et al., (2012) clearly shows that chital and
muntjac are both predated in accordance to their availability making them important prey wherever present.
Principal prey: chital and sambar:-numerically dominant ungulates (79.9%), which also occur most commonly in tiger diet (70-78%), based on
prey densities and diet preferences estimated from inviolate parts of Rajaji National Park (Harihar et al., 2011).
Preferred prey: sambar and wildpig, based on Hayward et al., (2012).
Text S1. Additional GAM results: prey species affinities to natural habitat variables
A significant non-linear effect of Elev was observed for red muntjac, indicating higher
densities at higher elevations, while for chital, densities were higher at lower elevations (Fig. 2a,
d). Although Elev was included as a significant term in the final wild pig model, the pattern was
inconspicuous (Fig. 2c). In the case of Himalayan goral, sambar and nilgai, TRI displayed
significant smooth functions with goral occurring at higher densities in more rugged terrain,
sambar attaining higher densities in regions of moderate ruggedness and nilgai occurring at
higher densities in flatter terrain (Fig. 2b, e, f). Vegetation seasonality (NDVI-CV) significantly
affected the densities of three species. While red muntjac and sambar densities declined in more
seasonal forests, the effect of NDVI-CV on nilgai density was positive (Fig. 2a, e, f). Vegetation
productivity (NDVI) had a significant effect on densities of Himalayan goral and wild pig, with
the smooth function indicating higher densities of goral at intermediate values of NDVI (Fig. 2b).
However, the shape of the response curve for wild pig was inconspicuous (Fig. 2c).
References
Harihar A. & Pandav B. (2012) Influence of connectivity, wild prey and disturbance on
occupancy of tigers in the human-dominated western Terai Arc Landscape. PloS One, 7,
e40105.
Harihar A., Pandav B., & Goyal S.P. (2011) Responses of leopard Panthera pardus to the
recovery of a tiger Panthera tigris population. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 806–814.
Hayward M.W., Jędrzejewski W., & Jedrzejewska B. (2012) Prey preferences of the tiger
Panthera tigris. Journal of Zoology, 286, 221–231.
Jhala Y. V, Qureshi Q., Gopal R., & Sinha P.R. (2011) Status of the tigers, co-predators, and
prey in India. 279.