Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Apr 25:54:e37.
doi: 10.1186/s40555-015-0116-9. eCollection 2015.

Habitat suitability models of mountain ungulates: identifying potential areas for conservation

Affiliations

Habitat suitability models of mountain ungulates: identifying potential areas for conservation

Prakash Kumar Paudel et al. Zool Stud. .

Abstract

Background: Determining the distribution of species and of suitable habitats is a fundamental part of conservation planning. We used slope and ruggedness of the terrain, forest type and distance to the nearest village to construct habitat suitability maps for three mountain ungulates (barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak), Himalayan goral (Naemorhedus goral) and Himalayan serow (Capricornis thar)) inthe midhills of western Nepal. We used locations of sightings and signs of presence of these mountain ungulates collected during surveys along transect to derive a suitability value for each variable using Jacob's index. A multiplication approach was used to combine environmental variables andproduce a habitat suitability map for each of the three species. An independent dataset was used to evaluate the maps using Boyce's index. This approach provides an overview of the probable distributions of the species in question.

Results: We predict that of the total area studied, 57% is suitable for M. muntjak, 67% for N. goral and 41% for C. thar. Although there are suitable habitats for all three species throughout the study area, the availability of high-quality habitats for these species varied considerably.

Conclusions: Suitable habitats for N. goral and C. thar were fragmented and mostly confined to the southern and northern parts of the study area. This study provides important baseline information for conservation biologists concerned with maintaining biodiversity in the midhills of Nepal.

Keywords: Capricornis thar; Habitat model; Midhills; Muntiacus muntjak; Naemorhedus goral; Nepal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Figure 1 Map of a 1 km × 1 km grid superimposed over the study area. The black regions are the grids that were sampled. The inset shows a map of the study area (in grey) showing the protected areas Bardia National Park in the south and Shey Phoksundo National Park in the north (in black) of Nepal. Location of the study area in the box (in black)
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Figure 2 Habitat preferences of each species based on Jacob’s index. The first, second and third columns correspond to barking deer, Himalayan goral and Himalayan serow, respectively (see Table 1 for the abbreviations).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Figure 3 Map of the habitats suitable for barking dee
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Figure 4 Map of the habitats suitable for Himalayan goral.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Figure 5 Map of the habitats suitable for Himalayan serow.

References

    1. Abbitt Rjf, Scott J M, Wilcove D S. The geography of vulnerability: incorporating species geography and human development patterns into conservation planning. Biol Conserv. 96:169–175.
    1. Andrén H. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos. 71:355–366.
    1. Austin M P, Meyers Ja ; 03753-X, Berry W D, Feldman S ;, Beverly Hills Boitani L, Sinibaldi I, Corsi F, Biase A D, Carranza I, Ravagli M, Reggiani G, Rondinini C, Trapanese P. Current approaches to modelling the environmental niche of eucalypts: implication for management of forest biodiversity. SAGE Publications, Inc. 85:605–621.
    1. Bonn A, Gaston K J. Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria. Biodivers Conserv. 14:1083–1100.
    1. Boyce M S, Vernier P R, Nielsen S E, Schmiegelow Fka. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model. 157:281–300.

LinkOut - more resources