Office Location:

Nature Conservation Foundation

135, 14th Main, 30th Cross,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru – 560 070
Karnataka, India
TeleFax: +91-80-2671 6897
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.ncf-india.org

Citation

Gubbi, S., Nagashettihalli, H., Suthar, S. & Menon, A.M. (2019) Leopards of Bannerghatta
National Park: A camera-trapping exercise to estimate abundance and densities of leopards,
Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India.
Contents

Acknowledgements 1

Introduction 2

Study Area 2

Methodology 6

Results 7

Discussion 10

References 14

Appendices 17
Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the Karnataka Forest Department for permissions to carry out the study in
Bannerghatta National Park (BNP) and all the support provided by them. We are grateful to
Shri. Prashant Shankhinamath, Deputy Conservator of Forests for all the cooperation during
our work.

We would like to acknowledge the support provided by all the Assistant Conservator of
Forests and Range Forest Officers. All the Deputy Range Forest Officers, Forest Guards and
Watchers have proved to be the greatest source of assistance and we are thankful to them.
We would like to thank all the volunteers who participated in the camera trapping process.

1
Introduction
The leopard (Panthera pardus) is one of the top predators found over a wide geographic
range and also adapted to human-dominated landscapes. They are elusive and solitary species
with a diet that constitutes a wide range of prey species. The combination of habitat
adaptability and catholic diet also makes it a highly conflict-prone species.

The leopard is listed under the ‘Vulnerable’ category in the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Stein et al. 2016). Under the
Wildlife Protection Act 1972 in India, they are listed as a Schedule 1 species which provides
them with the highest level of protection.

In India, few studies have been carried out over the years to estimate leopard density and
abundance in protected areas (PAs) and adjoining habitats that include both forested and
human-inhabited areas (Harihar et al. 2009; Athreya et al. 2013; Borah et al. 2014; Gubbi et
al. 2017). However, there is a serious lack of population information about the species both
within PAs and their habitats outside PAs due to the limited number of studies and the
leopards’ wide geographic distribution.

Leopards are exposed to several threats such as habitat loss and fragmentation, retaliatory
killing, vehicular collisions, poaching, depletion of prey and other unconventional threats
(Gubbi et al. 2014; Jacobson et al. 2016; Gubbi et al. 2017; Gubbi et al. In press). To
implement effective management and conservation strategies, it is important to know their
distribution, abundance and also interactions with other biotic and abiotic elements in their
habitat.

In Karnataka, the occurrences of leopards have been documented in PAs and human-
dominated habitats. Gubbi et al. (2017) estimated a mean abundance of ~ 300 (SD ± 15.2)
leopards in a ~3,170 km2 area comprising of PAs and multiple-use forests in Karnataka.
Poaching of prey, vehicular collisions, loss of habitat and human-leopard conflict are the
prevailing issues in Karnataka that pose serious threats to leopards (Gubbi et al. 2014;
Gubbi et al. 2017). Several known habitats of leopards are yet to be surveyed and their
overall distribution has to be estimated which would help in management and resolution of
these consistent threats.

In continuation of the previous study (Gubbi et al. 2017), this report provides the first
estimates of abundance and density of leopards in Bannerghatta National Park.

Study Area
Bannerghatta National Park (BNP), located in the Eastern Ghats forest ecosystem and
adjoining Bengaluru city to its north, covers an area of 260.5 km2. There are four
administrative ranges, which includes Bannerghatta, Harohalli, Kodihalli and Anekal.

It extends linearly and is irregularly shaped. BNP adjoins with Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary
(1,027 km2) to the south-west and other reserved forests of Tamil Nadu i.e. Bilikal and Tali

2
reserved forests to the south and south-east respectively; forming a contiguous landscape of
tropical scrub forests (See Map 1) (Adhikari et al. 2017).

It is characterized by tropical thorn shrub vegetation towards the fringes of the national park
and dry deciduous vegetation towards the hilly regions and valleys, the latter being relatively
less disturbed due to inaccessibility (Varma et al. 2009; Gopalakrishna et al. 2015).

The altitude of the BNP ranges between 700 and 1035 m above mean sea level with a mean
of 865m. Annually, BNP receives an average of 1065 mm (range 682 – 1607 mm) of rainfall.
The temperature within the national park varies over a range of 12 to 38°C (Gopalakrishna et
al. 2015). Human density is quite high around and within the park with a density of 14.87
individuals per km2 within the national park. There are six villages within BNP and 117
within a five km radius from the national park (Varma et al. 2009; Nagendra et al. 2013;
Adhikari et al. 2017).

The people living in the region belong to Gowda, Reddy and Lingayath communities and
Schedule Tribes such as Aadi Karnataka, Hakki-pikki, Iruliga, Lambani, etc. (Singh 2008;
Gopalakrishna et al. 2010). The southern part seems to be dominated primarily by Schedule
Tribes who are dependent on agriculture and cattle rearing while in the northern part local
communities have been shifting to more urbanized livelihoods like small businesses (Varma
et al. 2009). This might be due to the expansion of Bengaluru city which alleviates their
accessibility to the city.

Location co-ordinates

Latitude: 12° 20' 46.6188'' N to 12° 50' 37.1112'' N

Longitude: 77° 27' 46.3752'' E to 77° 38' 19.32'' E

Figure 1. Bannerghatta National Park is characterised by dry deciduous and tropical thorn
shrub vegetation

3
Map 1. Bannerghatta National Park, Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and adjoining reserved
forests in Tamil Nadu.

4
Flora

The national park is characterized by dry deciduous and tropical thorn shrub vegetation.
Gopalakrishna et al. (2015) documented 128 tree species from 45 families of which some
dominant species included Anogeissus latifolia, Acacia chundra, Cedrela toona, Ixora
arborea and Gymnosporia montana. Invasive species such as Lanatana camara and
Chromolaena odorata have been observed to occupy patches throughout the national park
possibly altering the ecosystem to a certain extent (Varma et al. 2009)

Fauna

BNP provides shelter for several species of mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds apart
from the endangered Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). The other mammals seen in the
national park include Indian gaur (Bos gaurus), sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), spotted deer
(Axis axis), leopard (Panthera pardus fusca), wild dog (Cuon alpinus), wild pig (Sus scrofa),
sloth bear (Melurus ursinus), grey mongoose (Herpestes edwardsii), pangolin (Manis
crassicaudata), slender loris (Loris lydekkerianus), black-naped hare (Lepus nigricollis) and
others. The national park harbours around 222 species of birds, 53 species of reptiles and 12
species of amphibians (Sharma 1972; Rajeev 2002; Thirumalai et al. 2007; Singh 2008).

5
Methodology
Camera trapping

The study area was divided into three blocks covering an area of 260.5 km2. The camera trap
locations were identified before the initial deployment of the cameras in order to ensure high
capture probability. Locations where there were signs of leopard movement including scats,
pugmarks, scrape marks were prioritized for placing camera traps. Panthera V4 and V6
motion detection cameras were secured using python cables to an appropriate support at a
height of ~ 40 cm from the ground, which is the optimal height to ensure capturing both
flanks of a leopard. Camera traps were placed on either side of a trail/forest road to ensure
that both flanks were captured.

Camera traps were deployed at 191 locations between 3rd February and 31st March 2019 for
48 days (16 days in each block resulting in 16 unique sampling occasions). The population of
leopards was assumed to be closed (no mortality, natality, immigration and emigration)
within the study site due to the short camera-trapping period.

The camera traps operated throughout the day and were checked once in 2-3 days to
download photographs, replace batteries if required, and ensure their proper functioning. The
downloaded images were processed using an automated classifier built on the Python
platform which essentially segregated the photos into folders based on species (Rampi et al.
Unpublished). These folders were then validated and the name of the species captured was
written to the image metadata using the software Digikam (Version 5.8.0; Gilles et al. 2018).
The unique combination of the camera trap location and camera ID provided the date, time
and location coordinates for each captured image. Once the images were sorted, leopard
individuals were matched based on the rosette patterns on their respective flanks using Wild-
ID (Bolger et al. 2011). Unclear images were not used during this process of identifying
individuals. The flanks with maximum number of unique individuals were used for analysis.

Density and abundance estimation

The statistical analysis was carried out with R programming using SECR package which is
based on Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture methodology (Efford 2018). The input files,
i.e. detector layout, capture history matrix and mask layer, were prepared according to the
SECR operational manuals. The detector layout file accounted for the functioning or non-
functioning of camera traps on different sampling occasions. The mask layer represented the
spatial information about suitable habitat for a 2 km buffer area from the outermost camera
trap locations (Efford 2018). The capture history matrix had one row each for individually
identified leopards at a particular location and sampling occasion. The program then utilised
this spatial information to estimate capture probabilities and fitted models by maximising the
likelihood (Borchers and Efford 2008). In order to select the model with the best estimates of
density and abundance, the Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) for likelihood-based
models was considered. A finite mixture model was selected which used hazard rate as
detection function and accounted for the heterogeneity in detection probabilities among
individuals.

6
Relative Abundance Index calculation

Relative Abundance Index (RAI) was calculated for all prey species using the photographic
capture rate i.e. the number of independent photo captures for a particular species per 100
trap days. Studies show that the photographic capture rates correlate with density estimates
for large terrestrial mammals and thus RAI can be used as a valid index of density for
unmarked species (Rovero & Marshall 2009; Palmer et al. 2018)

All the different mammal species that were photo captured were segregated into specific
folders with species names. Using the timestamp in the metadata of the image, images were
matched automatically using a VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) script in excel in order to
extract number of individual events for each species separately. A threshold time interval (or
event duration) that was considered to categorise photos as an independent event was
predefined for each species and based on the amount of time taken by different species
(individually or as a group) to cross the camera trap location (Appendix-2). Photos with
multiple individuals of the same species were considered as one event.

In the case of livestock, cow and buffalo were categorized as large livestock while sheep and
goat were grouped as small livestock. If different livestock species were to be camera trapped
at the same location during the same event duration, it was still considered as one event.

After the number of independent events was tabulated, it was divided by the total number of
camera trapping days and further multiplied by 100 to give the RAI for each species per 100
trap days.

Results
Abundance and density estimates for leopards

The camera traps captured 589 leopard images and a total of 34 adult individual leopards
were identified which was used for analysis. Of the identified individuals, 17 were male and
16 were female. The sex of one individual could not be identified. A total of five sub-adults
and one cub were also identified but not used for analysis. The SECR analysis provided an
abundance estimate of approximately 40 leopards and a density estimate of 7.96 leopards per
100 km2 (Table 1).

Accounting for individual heterogeneity, individuals were segregated into two groups with
different detection probabilities. The first group considered 73% of the individuals with a
detection probability of 0.03 ± SE 0.005 and second group included the remaining 27% with
a detection probability of 0.08 ± SE 0.01. Map 2 shows the pixel density estimates of
leopards within a 2 km buffer around BNP.

7
Table 1: Results of the SECR analysis for leopards for habitat mask area of 2 km in
Bannerghatta National Park

Estimate SE lcl ucl

Abundance (N) 40.31 2.84 36.72 48.62
Density (D) 7.96 1.37 5.68 11.13
σ 2484.84 244.73 2049.57 3012.55
N - Estimate of total number of individuals in the study area, D – No of leopards/100 km2, σ
– Spatial scale of detection function (in meters)

Relative Abundance Index (RAI) of leopard prey

The combined RAI per 100 trap days for wild prey was 116.85 and domestic prey was 21.24.
The results of the Relative Abundance Index (RAI) of leopards’ natural and domestic prey
are given in Table 2.

Table 2: Results of the Relative Abundance Index (RAI) calculated for leopards' natural and
domestic prey in Bannerghatta National Park.

Schedule
under the Global status
RAI/100 trap
Species Wildlife under the IUCN
days (SE)
Protection Red List
Act 1972
Wild prey
Sambar (Rusa unicolor) III Vulnerable 5.11 (0.005)
Chital (Axis axis) III Least Concern 5.89 (0.004)
Barking deer (Muntiacus vaginalis) III Least Concern 0.95 (0.001)
Four-horned antelope
(Tetracerus quadricornis) I Vulnerable 0.68 (0.001)
Gaur (Bos gaurus) I Vulnerable 3.83 (0.003)
Wild pig (Sus scrofa) III Least Concern 7.67 (0.004)
Bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata) II Least Concern 2.98 (0.004)
Porcupine (Hystrix indica) IV Least Concern 1.21 (0.001)
Black-naped hare
(Lepus nigricollis) IV Least Concern 45.56 (0.019)
Domestic prey
Large livestock NA NA 15.73 (0.017)
Small livestock NA NA 7.37 (0.008)
Domestic dog NA NA 19.83 (0.025)

8
Map 2. Pixel density map showing the fine scale variation in leopard numbers per km2 in
Bannerghatta National Park

9
Other fauna
A total of 24 wild mammalian species were captured in camera traps at BNP during the study
period. All the 24 mammal species are listed in Table 3 and photographs are attached as
Appendix-1.
Table 3: Other mammal species photo-captured in camera traps in Bannerghatta National
Park

Schedule status Global status

Species under the Wildlife under the
Protection Act 1972 IUCN Red List
Tiger (Panthera tigris) I Endangered
Dhole (Cuon alpinus) II Endangered
Jackal (Canis aureus) II Least Concern
Indian fox (Vulpes bengalensis) II Least Concern
Jungle cat (Felis chaus) II Least Concern
Rusty spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus) I Near Threatened
Sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) I Vulnerable
Elephant (Elephas maximus) I Endangered
Ratel (Mellivora capensis) I Least Concern
Grey mongoose (Herpestes edwardsii) II Least Concern
Ruddy mongoose (Herpestes smithii) II Least Concern
Common palm civet
(Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) II Least Concern
Small Indian civet (Viverricula indica) II Least Concern
Indian gerbil (Tatera indica) IV Least Concern

Discussion
The abundance and density estimates from this study provide baseline information for
leopards in BNP. An abundance of ~40 seems fairly high for a national park with an area of
260.5 km2. The density (7.96/km2 SE ±1.37) in BNP is higher than adjoining PAs such as
Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary (4.91/km2 SE ±0.58) which has an area more than four times that
of BNP (Gubbi et al. 2017).

The larger driving factor in the case of BNP could be the availability of wild prey in good
abundance. The combined RAI per 100 trap days for all wild prey was 116.85, which is
considerably higher as compared to a combined RAI of 47.99 from the adjoining and much
larger Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary (1,027 km2) (Gubbi et al. 2017). In addition to this,
domestic prey in surrounding habitats might contribute to a higher abundance of leopards
since pastoralism is one of the primary occupations in the area (Varma et al. 2009; Athreya et
al. 2016). Further analysis is required to understand the extent of dependence of leopard
abundance on the relative abundance of wild and domestic prey.

The national park is under constant pressure of encroachment and conversion of land due to
the close proximity to Bengaluru city, which is ever growing (Nagendra et al. 2013). Even

10
settlements within the park have been observed to be expanding on forestland for their
livelihood activities from time to time (Nagendra et al. 2013). The leopards often move into
human- inhabited areas to prey on domestic animals leading to human-wildlife conflict,
which is a major threat that has to be addressed.

There are several major tarred roads such as Bannerghatta-Kaggalipura road, Bannerghatta-
Raagihalli-Harohalli road, Jigani-Harohalli Road, Agara-Kodihalli road, Anekal road, all of
which cut across the national park. The proposed Satellite Town Ring Road will further
fragment the national park. The NICE road falls within deemed forests that are connected to
BNP. Developmental projects involving road construction add pressure on the ecosystem
causing disturbance and fragmentation of the habitat, thus taking a toll on the local
biodiversity. Road kills due to vehicular collision have become a common issue with road
networks within forested areas. Gubbi et al. (2014) recorded 23 leopards that were killed in
vehicular collisions in Karnataka during July 2009-June 2014. Over duration of four years
(2011-15), there have been four reports of leopards being killed by vehicular collision near
BNP and mostly on highways (Appendix-3). Therefore, appropriate mitigation measures have
to be taken in order to incorporate the needs of wildlife in existing road and new roads should
be aligned outside the national park.

Metapopulation

Two leopard individuals that were photo-captured in BNP in 2019 were previously captured
in Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary in 2018 (Gubbi et al. Unpublished). One of the individuals has
moved nearly 16 km (shortest distance between the two farthest camera trapped locations)
from Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary to Bannerghatta National Park within two months
(December 2018 to February 2019) (Figure 2). The area surrounding the national park
connecting Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary acts as a corridor for wildlife. But it is mainly
degraded native forest, agricultural land and plantations (Rashmi and Lele 2010; Adhikari et
al. 2014). This leads to habitat fragmentation and such movements of wildlife through
human habitation can in turn give rise to conflict or perceived conflict situations. Hence,
ensuring that the native forest connectivity is maintained between the two PAs is very crucial
both for people and wildlife.

BNP is also contiguous with Gollahalligudda (0.57 km2), BM Kaval Reserved Forest (4.28
km2), Roerich Estate (1.29 km2), UM Kaval Reserved Forest (0.63 km2) and a large chunk of
deemed forests (~12.95 km2) between Bannerghatta and Roerich Estate (See Map 3). All
these areas together form a contiguous forest patch of 21.6 km2 and acts as an important
buffer between BNP and Bengaluru city. Hence we recommend that these areas should be
notified as the Roerich Conservation Reserve (in recognition of the famed artist Svetoslav
Nikolaevich Roerich who also conserved a large forest patch and lakes in this landscape) for
the long-term conservation of wildlife of BNP and also to pro-actively avoid human-wildlife
conflict.

11
Figure 2. A leopard (Panthera pardus) catalogued as BG-23 camera-trapped in Bannerghatta
National Park in February 2019 (above) and previously in Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary in
December 2018 (below).
Besides leopards, we have 24 other mammal species captured in our camera traps. Our
camera trapping efforts have revealed the presence of one individual tiger within the national
park (Figure 3). The threats discussed above, apply to all of these mammal species of which
many might be affected more severely than others.

Since this study provides a baseline data for many of these mammal species, we should be
able to monitor any changes in their relative abundance with systematic monitoring over the
coming years.

12
Map 3: Bannerghatta National Park and its adjoining areas that are proposed to be notified as
a Conservation Reserve.

Figure 3 . The only tiger (Panthera tigris) individual camera trapped in Bannerghatta
National Park
13
References
Adhikari, S., Southworth, J., & Nagendra, H. (2014). Understanding forest loss and recovery:
a spatiotemporal analysis of land change in and around Bannerghatta National Park,
India. Journal of Land Use Science, 10(4), 402-424.

Adhikari, S., Fik, T., & Dwivedi, P. (2017). Proximate causes of land-use and land-cover
change in Bannerghatta National Park: A spatial statistical model. Forests, 8(9), 342.

Athreya, V.R., Thakur, S.S., Chaudhuri, S. & Belsare, A.V. (2013). Big cats in our
backyards: persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India. PloS
one, 8(3), p.e57872.

Athreya, V., Odden, M., Linnell, J. D., Krishnaswamy, J., & Karanth, K. U. (2016). A cat
among the dogs: leopard Panthera pardus diet in a human-dominated landscape in western
Maharashtra, India. Oryx, 50(1), 156-162.

Bolger, D. T., Vance, B., Morrison, T. A., & Farid, H. (2011). Wild-ID user guide: pattern
extraction and matching software for computer-assisted photographic mark recapture
analysis. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

Borah, J., Sharma, T., Das, D., Rabha, N., Kakati, N., Basumatary, A., & Vattakaven, J.
(2014). Abundance and density estimates for common leopard Panthera pardus and
clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa in Manas National Park, Assam, India. Oryx, 48(1),
149-155.

Borchers, D. L., and Efford, M. G. (2008). Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods
for capture–recapture studies. Biometrics, 64(2), 377-385.

Efford, M. (2018) Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture. R package version 3.1.7

Gilles, C., Wiesweg, M., Qualmann, M., Hansen, M.G., Rytilahti, T., Welwarsky, M.,
Narboux, J., Frank, M., Lecureuil, N., Palani, A., Clemens, A., Spendrin, P., Pontabry, J.,
Baecker, A., Cruz, F.J., Raju, R., Ahrens, J., Albers, T. and Holzer R. (2018) DigiKam:
Professional Photo Management with the Power of Open Source [Version 5.8.0], Boston,
United States of America.
Gopalakrishna, S. P., Somashekar, R. K., Anand, V. J., & Varma, S. (2010). Asian Elephant
and Bannerghatta National Park in Eastern Ghats, Southern India. Gajah, 33, 47-52.
Gopalakrishna, S. P., Kaonga, M. L., Somashekar, R. K., Suresh, H. S., & Suresh, R. (2015).
Tree diversity in the tropical dry forest of Bannerghatta National Park in Eastern Ghats,
Southern India. European Journal of Ecology, 1(2), 12-27.

Gubbi, S., Poornesha, H. C., Daithota, A., & Nagashettihalli, H. (2014). Roads emerging as a
critical threat to leopards in India. Cat news, 60, 30-31.

Gubbi, S., Nagashettihalli, H., Bhat, R., Poornesha, H.C., Anoop, A., & Madhusudan, M.D.
(2017). Ecology and conservation of leopards in protected and multiple use forests in
Karnataka. Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India.

14
Gubbi, S., Kolekar, A., Chakraborty, P., & Kumara. V (In Press) Big cat in well: an
unconventional threat to leopards in southern India. Oryx.

Harihar, A., Pandav, B., & Goyal, S. P. (2009). Density of leopards (Panthera pardus) in the
Chilla Range of Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand, India. Mammalia, 73(1), 68-71.

Jacobson, A. P., Gerngross, P., Lemeris Jr., J. R., Schoonover, R. F., Anco, C., Breitenmoser-
Würsten, C., & Dollar, L. (2016). Leopard (Panthera pardus) status, distribution, and the
research efforts across its range. PeerJ, 4, e1974.
Nagendra, H., Mondal, P., Adhikari, S., & Southworth, J. (2013). Peopled Parks: Forest
change in India’s protected landscapes. In Human-Environment Interactions (pp. 113-
139). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Palmer, M. S., Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Arnold, T., & Packer, C. (2018). Evaluating
relative abundance indices for terrestrial herbivores from large‐scale camera trap
surveys. African journal of ecology, 56(4), 791-803.

Rajeev, (2002). Management plan for Bannerghatta National Park 2002-2003 to 2007- 2008.
Report submitted to the Government of India by the Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Karnataka Forest Department.

Rashmi, M. K., & Lele, N. (2010). Spatial modeling and validation of forest cover change in
Kanakapura region using GEOMOD. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote
Sensing, 38(1), 45-54.

Rovero, F., & Marshall, A. R. (2009). Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of
density in forest ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(5), 1011-1017.

Sharma, Y. M. L. (1972). Bannergatta National Park-Project Report. Report submitted to the

Government of India by Conservator of Forests (Development), Mysore Forest
Department.

Singh, V.V. (2008) Wildlife Management Plan for Bannerghatta National Park, 2008-09 to
2012- 13. Government of Karnataka

Stein, A.B., Athreya, V., Gerngross, P., Balme, G., Henschel, P., Karanth, U., Miquelle, D.,
Rostro-Garcia, S., Kamler, J.F., Laguardia, A., Khorozyan, I. & Ghoddousi,
A. 2016. Panthera pardus (errata version published in 2016). The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2016:
e.T15954A102421779. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-
1.RLTS.T15954A50659089.en. [Downloaded on 04 September 2019].

Thirumalai, G., Krishnan, S., Valarmathi, K. & Remadevi, K. (2007). Fauna of Bannerghatta
National Park, Conservation Area Series, 33. Kolkata, West Bengal: Zoological Survey
of India

15
Varma, S., Anand, V. D., Avinash, K. G., & Nishant, M. S. (2009). Ecology, conservation
and management of the Asian elephant in Bannerghatta National Park, southern India. A
Rocha India/ANCF: Asian Elephant Ecology and Conservation Reference Series, 1, 13-
52.

16
 Appendix – 1

Photographs of mammal species captured in Bannerghatta National Park during camera trapping session in
February-March 2019.

Leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) Tiger (Panthera tigris)

Jungle cat (Felis chaus) Rusty spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus)

Jackal (Canis aureus) Bengal fox (Vulpes bengalensis)

17
 Dhole (Cuon alpinus) Elephant (Elephas maximus)

Sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) Gaur (Bos gaurus)

Porcupine (Hystrix indica) Ratel (Mellivora capensis)

Chital (Axis axis) Sambar (Rusa unicolor)

18
Barking deer (Muntiacus vaginalis) Four-horned antelope
(Tetracerus quadricornis)

Wild pig (Sus scrofa) Indian gerbil (Tatera indica)

Black-naped hare (Lepus nigricollis) Bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata)

Common palm civet Small Indian civet

(Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) (Viverricula indica)
19
Ruddy mongoose (Herpestes smithii) Grey mongoose (Herpestes edwardsii)

20
 Appendix – 2

Event duration used for calculating Relative Abundance Index (RAI) of leopards’ natural and
domestic prey

Species Event duration (seconds)

Wild prey
Sambar (Rusa unicolor) 60
Chital (Axis axis) 120
Barking deer (Muntiacus vaginalis) 60
Four-horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis) 60
Gaur (Bos gaurus) 180
Wild pig (Sus scrofa) 60
Bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata) 360
Porcupine (Hystrix indica) 60
Black-naped hare (Lepus nigricollis) 60
Domestic prey
Large livestock 300
Small livestock 180
Domestic dog 60

21
 Appendix – 3

Leopards killed in vehicular collisions near Bannerghatta National Park during February 2011 and
February 2015

Publication /
Date Incident Sex Road Name District
Source

Lorry runs over Bangalore

1-Feb-11 The Hindu Male NICE road
leopard Urban

Deccan Leopard killed in Bangalore

7-Mar-11 Female NICE road
Herald accident Urban
4 year old
pregnant female
Deccan Bannerghatta Bangalore
13-Oct-14 leopard killed by Female
Herald road Urban
vehicular
collision.
3 year old
leopard male
Bangalore
16-Feb-15 The Hindu killed by Male NICE road
Urban
vehicular
collision.

22
Research team
Sanjay Gubbi
Harish N.S.
Shravan Suthar
Poornesha H.C.
Amrita M. Menon
Sandesh Appu Naik
Gnanendra L.
Ravidas Ganesh Gawda
Girish M. N.