2. Citation:
Bipin C.M., Bhattacharjee S., Shah S., Sharma V.S., Mishra R.K., Ghose D., & Jhala Y.V.
(2013). Status of prey in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun.
Cover page photo credits:
Bipin.C.M

3. Status of Prey in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary
Madhya Pradesh
2013
Madhya Pradesh
Forest Department
Team
V.S. Sharma, IFS
- Chief Conservator of Forests,
Lion Project
R.K. Mishra, IFS
- Division Forest Officer
Kuno Wildlfe Division
Wildlife Institute of India
Team
Y.V. Jhala, Ph.D.
Scientist- G
- Head of Department
Animal Ecology &
Conservation Biology
Bipin C.M.
World Wildlife Fund for
Nature (WWF), India
Team
Dipankar Ghose, Ph.D.
- Director, Species &
Landscapes Division
Sunny Shah
Subhadeep Bhattacharjee

4. Contents
Page No.
Introduction 01
Prey base Estimation 03
Methods 03
Analysis 04
Results 05
Discussion 06
Literature Cited 07
Annexure 1
Summary of Prey Species Abundance Estimation Model 08
Parameters in DISTANCE
Annexure 2
Detection Function Curves for Prey Species Abundance Estimation
2.01: Chital in Kuno WLS 09
2.02: Sambar in Kuno WLS 09
2.03: Nilgai in Kuno WLS 10
2.04: Wild pig in Kuno WLS 10
2.05: Chinkara in Kuno WLS 11
2.06: Four-horned antelope in Kuno WLS 11
2.07: Gray langur in Kuno WLS 12
2.08: Peafowl in Kuno WLS 12
2.09: Feral cattle in Kuno WLS 13

5. 1
Status of Prey in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh
2013
Introduction: - Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS) is spread over an area of 344.68 km2
and is
situated in Sheopur district of Madhya Pradesh. The Sanctuary is part of the Kuno wildlife
division which covers an area of 1235.39 km2
. Kuno River, one of the major tributaries of
Chambal River flows through the entire length bisecting the wildlife division. The division
comprises of eight ranges, with Palpur west and Palpur east ranges forming the Sanctuary. The
six ranges in the buffer area are Moravan east and west, Sironi north and south, Agara west
and east (See Fig.1) The area is classified as Semi-arid zone (4b), Gujarat- Rajputana
biogeographic region (Rodgers et al. 2002). The elevation ranges from 238m to 498m above
msl. The south-western portion of this landscape is patchily connected to Panna Tiger Reserve
through Shivpuri forest area. On the north-western side, this forest region is contiguous with
Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve across the river Chambal.
Fig 1: Kuno wildlife division

6. 2
Temperature and Rainfall: During the months of April and May, the maximum summer
temperature ranges between 38°C - 47.4°C and the minimum winter temperature through the
months of December to February ranges between 0.6°C - 12.4°C .The average annual rainfall is
760mm.
Vegetation: According to the revised classification of forest types of India (Champion & Seth
1968) the forest types found in this region are:
Northern tropical dry deciduous forest
Southern tropical dry deciduous forest
Anogeissus pendula forest & scrub
Boswellia forest
Butea forest
Dry savannah forest & grassland
Tropical riverine forest
The dominant tree species that occur in the division are Acacia catechu (Khair), Anogeissus
pendula (Kardhai), Boswellia serrata (Salai), Diospyros melanoxylon (Tendu), Butea
monosperma (Palash), Anogeissus latifolia (Dhok), Acacia leucophlea (Remja), Zizyphus
mauritiana (Ber) and Zizyphus xylopyrus (Ghont).
Prominent shrub species include Grewia flavescens, Helicteres isora, Dodonoea viscosa, Vitex
nigundo. Some of the grass species found are Heteropogon contortus, Apluda mutica, Aristida
hystrix, Themeda quadrivalvis, Cenchrus ciliaris and Desmostachya bipinnata. Commonly found
weeds in this area include Cassia tora and Argemone mexicana.
Wildlife: The herbivores found in this area are Axis axis (Chital), Rusa unicolor (Sambar),
Boselaphus tragocamelus (Nilgai), Sus scrofa (Wild pig), Gazella bennetii (Chinkara),
Tetracerus quadricornis (Chousingha or Four-horned antelope), Antilope cervicapra
(Blackbuck), Semnopethicus dussumieri (Southern plains gray langur), Hystrix indica (Indian
crested porcupine) and Lepus nigricollis (Indian hare).
Carnivores include the Panthera pardus (Leopard), Ursus melursinus (Sloth bear), Hyaena
hyaena (Striped hyaena), Canis lupus (Gray wolf), Canis aureus (Golden jackal), Vulpes
bengalensis (Indian fox) and Mellivora capensis (Ratel). One male Panthera tigris (Tiger) which
has migrated from Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve is seen moving in and around the Sanctuary

7. 3
since December 2010. Small carnivores such as the Felis chaus (Jungle cat), Herpestes
edwardsii (Indian grey mongoose), Herpestes smithii (Ruddy mongoose) and Herpestes
javanicus (Small Asian mongoose) are found here.
Some of the bird species that occur here are Sarcogyps calvus (Red headed vulture) , Gyps
indicus (Indian vulture), Neophron percnopterus (Egyptian vulture), Pernis ptilorhyncus (Oriental
honey- buzzard), Elanus caeruleus (Black shouldered kite), Ketupa zeylonensis (Brown fish
owl), Caprimulgus europaeus (Eurasian nightjar), Caprimulgus asiaticus (Indian nightjar) , Pavo
cristatus (Indian peafowl), Pterocles indicus (Painted sandgrouse),Ciconia episcopus (Woolly-
necked stork), Esacusre curvirostris (Great thick-knee)Phaenicophaeus leschenaultia (Sirkeer
malkoha), Oriolus kundoo (Indian golden oriole), Dinopium benghalense (Black-rumped
flameback), Lanius vittatus (Bay- backed shrike) & Terpsiphone paradise (Asian paradise
flycatcher). A few of the reptiles found in the sanctuary are Crocodylus palustris (Mugger),
Nilssonia gangetica (Ganges softshell turtle) & Varanus bengalensis (Bengal monitor lizard).
Occasionally, Gavialis gangeticus (Gharial) is also sighted in Kuno River.
To assess the prey base in Kuno WLS, Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and World Wildlife Fund
for Nature (WWF) – India was requested to conduct a survey in June 2013 by the Madhya
Pradesh Forest Department (MPFD).The survey was jointly carried out by WII, WWF and
MPFD. On 16th
June, training was imparted to the forest department staff about the protocols to
be followed and the equipments to be used during the survey. The prey assessment survey in
Kuno WLS was carried out from 17th
to 19th
June 2013. The data was collected by the forest
department staff. A total of 48 people were involved in the survey.
Prey base estimation
Methods:-
Field methods;
To assess the prey density, the sampling protocol designed for monitoring tigers, co-predators,
prey and their habitat (Jhala et al., 2009) was used.
Prey base density estimation: Distance sampling on systematic line transect method was
used (Buckland et al. 2001) to estimate population density of prey. Fixed line transects
distributed across Kuno WLS, of length ranging from 2-3 km were sampled (Fig. 2). A total of 24
line transects in the Sanctuary were sampled. All the line transects were walked three times. On
every walk, prey species (chital, sambar, nilgai, chinkara, four-horned antelope, blackbuck, wild
pig, gray langur, Indian hare, peafowl and feral cattle) observed along with their group sizes was

8. 4
recorded. Sighting distance and sighting angle to the prey was measured using a laser range
finder (Bushnell pro800) and handheld compass (Suunto) respectively. The total sampling effort
was 211.05 km and 144 man-days.
Fig. 2: Map of 24 transect lines sampled to estimate prey population density in Kuno WLS
Analysis;
Using the software DISTANCE 6.0 (Thomas et al. 2009), the density of prey species which
include chital, sambar, nilgai, wild pig, chinkara, four-horned antelope, gray langur, peafowl and
feral cattle were estimated. DISTANCE enables the computation of detection probability for the
sightings of prey species obtained during transect walks (Buckland 1985; Buckland et al. 1993;
Karanth & Nichols 2002). This detection probability enables estimation of animal abundances by
correcting for the biases in detection of animals.
Model selection: In DISTANCE analysis, several models were used with varying group
intervals and truncations to select a model that best fit the data. Detection function was usually
fitted using half normal or hazard rate or uniform models as key functions with cosine or simple
polynomial series expansion. Outliers from the data were truncated. AIC values, goodness of fit

9. 5
tests, visual inspection of the detection function and variances associated with the density
estimates obtained were used to select the most appropriate model for each prey species
(Buckland et al. 2001). Due to low observations for wild pig, chinkara, four-horned antelope and
feral cattle, data of 2012 and 2013 were pooled together to model the detection functions for
each species. Since the transect lines, habitat and season of the survey conducted in 2012 and
2013 were the same, pooling of data to obtain statistical rigor was warranted. Based on the
selected model for the above mentioned species using the detection function and post
stratification, individual density (Di), group density (Ds) and average cluster size for the
surveyed year for each of the species were estimated.
Results:-
Prey density estimates:
In Kuno WLS, chital is the most abundant prey with density estimate of 69.36 /km2
±10.51.The
density estimates of sambar, nilgai, wild pig and chinkara are 4.85 /km2
± 1.19, 3.92 /km2
± 0.97,
3.05 /km2
± 0.78 and 0.86 /km2
± 0.28 respectively (Table 1). The summary of the prey density
model parameters in Kuno WLS are shown in Appendix 1 and the detection function curves are
shown in Appendix 2. During sampling blackbuck and hare were also sighted, but due to low
sample size, density could not be estimated. The group encounter rate for blackbuck and hare
are 0.005/km and 0.03/km respectively.
Table 1: Estimates of population density and biomass of prey species in Kuno WLS- 2013
Species
3/4 of
Female
Body
Weight(kg)
Population Density/km2
±Standard Error
Biomass
(kg/km2
)
Chital 30 69.36 ± 10.51 2080.8 ± 315.3
Sambar 120 4.85 ± 1.19 582.0 ± 142.8
Nilgai 120 3.92 ± 0.97 470.4 ± 116.4
Wild pig 27 3.05 ± 0.78 82.35 ± 21.06
Chinkara 12 0.86 ± 0.28 10.32 ± 3.36
Four-horned antelope 15 1.00 ± 0.44 15.0 ± 6.6
Gray langur 7 40.14 ± 10.27 280.98 ± 71.89
Peafowl 3 13.84 ± 2.83 41.52 ± 8.46
Feral cattle 40 2.34 ± 1.2 93.6 ± 48
Total 3656.97 ± 733.7

10. 6
Biomass estimate: Using 3/4 of the adult body female body weight and density estimates of
prey species, the biomass in Kuno WLS for the year 2013 was estimated as 3657.97 kg /km2
±
733.7 (Table 1).
Discussion: - Since 2005, WII has been conducting population estimation in Kuno WLS and
the data suggests an exponential increase in chital population (Table 2). The natural log
transformed population density estimates when regressed against time provide an estimate of
the realized rate of increase - r (Caughley, 1977). Chital population grew at a realized growth
rate (r) =0.35 (Fig.3) and finite rate of population change (λ) =1.42, where λ=er
.
Table 2: Chital Population in Kuno WLS since 2005
S.no Year Chital population density/km2
± Standard Error
1 2005 4.63 ± 1.03 (Banerjee, K. 2005)
2 2006 5.3 ± 1.78 (Jhala & Qureshi, 2006. Unpub.)
3 2011 35.87 ± 11.7 (Jhala et al., 2011)
4 2012 51.59 ± 8.84 (Jhala et al., 2012)
5 2013 69.36 ± 10.51 (Present survey)
The observed r is exceptionally high suggesting a growth rate close to intrinsic growth rate (rm).
The intrinsic growth rate for chital population is 0.44 using the equation rm=1.5W-0.36
(Caughley
and Krebs, 1983) where W is 3/4 of the adult body female body weight. The recovery of chital
population could be attributed to the good management practices and protection measures
implemented by the forest department in Kuno WLS.
Fig. 3: Chital Population in Kuno WLS since 2005
Chital density/km2 = 2.948e0.353Year
R² = 0.996
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
PopulationDensity/km2
Chital
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Year

11. 7
Literature cited:-
Banerjee, K. (2005). Estimating the ungulate abundance and developing the habitat specific
effective strip width models in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Dissertation submitted
in partial fulfillment of the degree of M.Sc. Forestry, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun.
pp.170.
Buckland S.T. (1985). Perpendicular distance models for line transect sampling. Biometrics. 41:
177-195.
Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P. and Laake, J.L. (1993) Distance Sampling:
Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman & Hall, London.
Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J.L., Borchers, D.L. and Thomas, L.
(2001). Introduction to distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Caughley, G. (1977). Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley. 234p. New York.
Caughley, G. & Krebs, C. (1983) Are big mammals simply little mammals writ large? Oecologia,
59, 7–17.
Champion, H.G. and Seth, S.K. (1968). A revised survey of the forest types of India, Manager of
publications, Government of India, New Delhi.
Jhala, Y.V., Ranjitsinh, M. K. and Pabla, H.S, (2011). Action plan for the reintroduction of the
cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) in Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun.
Karanth, K.U. and Nichols, J (Eds.). (2002). Monitoring tigers and their prey: A manual for
researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife Studies,
Bangalore.
Rodger, W.A., Panwar, H.S. and Mathur, V.B (2002). Wildlife Protected Area network in India: A
reiew (Executive summary). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
Thomas, L., Laake, J.L., Rexstad, E., Strindberg, S., Marques, F.F.C., Buckland, S.T., Borchers,
D.L., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Burt, M.L., Hedley, S.L., Pollard, J.H., Bishop, J.R.B., and
Marques, T.A. (2009). Distance 6.0. Release 2. Research Unit for Wildlife Population
Assessment, University of St. Andrews, UK.

12. 8
Annexure 1: Summary of Prey Species Abundance Estimation Model Parameters in DISTANCE
Category Chital Sambar Nilgai
Wild
pig Chinkara
Four-
horned
antelope
Gray
Langur
Peafowl
Feral
cattle
Number of Replicates 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Number of Observations (n) 172 42 47 27 10 11 68 45 21
Effort (L) km 211.05 211.05 211.05 211.05 211.05 211.05 211.05 211.05 211.05
Density (Di) / km2
± Standard Error (S.E)
69.36
± 10.51
4.85
± 1.19
3.92
± 0.97
3.05
± 0.78
0.86
± 0.28
1.00
± 0.44
40.14
± 10.27
13.84
± 2.83
2.34
± 1.2
Di Coefficient of Variation
(% CV)
15.15 24.54 24.66 25.55 32.19 43.74 25.58 20.46 51.1
Di - 95% Confidence
Interval
51.44 -
93.53
2.99 -
7.86
2.42 -
6.35
1.85 -
5.03
0.45 -
1.62
0.43 -
2.33
24.29 -
66.32
9.19 -
20.84
0.89 -
6.18
Group Density(Ds)/km2
± S.E
7.21
± 0.85
2.3
± 0.53
1.72
± 0.39
1.23
± 0.25
0.39
± 0.12
0.54
± 0.22
2.98
± 0.67
4.6
± 0.87
0.59
± 0.22
Ds Coefficient of Variation
(% CV)
11.86 22.93 22.52 20.51 30.07 40.33 22.58 18.87 37.51
Probability of Detection (p) 0.29 0.42 0.27 0.26 0.56 0.63 0.35 0.38 0.56
Goodness of Fit (Chi2
-p) 0.96 0.87 0.92 0.99 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.9 0.96
Effective Strip Width (ESW)
m
56.55 43.26 64.92 52.11 61.33 48.02 54.05 54.64 84.63
Group Encounter Rate 0.81 0.2 0.22 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.32 0.59 0.1
Model
Half
Normal
Uniform
Hazard
Rate
Hazard
Rate
Uniform Uniform
Hazard
Rate
Half
Normal
Uniform
Model Adjustment Term Cosine Cosine
Simple
Polynomial Cosine Cosine Cosine Cosine Cosine Cosine

13. 9
Annexure 2:
Detection Function Curves for Prey Species Abundance Estimation
1. Chital
Model: Half normal with cosine adjustment term
( 2
- p =0.9649, p=0.2857 )
2. Sambar
Model: Uniform with cosine adjustment term
( 2
- p =0.8682, p= 0.4184)

14. 10
3. Nilgai
Model: Hazard rate with simple polynomial adjustment term
( 2
- p =0.9211, p=0.2677 )
4. Wild pig
Model: Hazard rate with cosine adjustment term
( 2
- p =0. 9889, p= 0. 0.2641)

15. 11
5. Chinkara
Model: Uniform with cosine adjustment term
( 2
- p =0.9794, p= 0.5576)
6. Four-horned antelope
Model: Uniform with cosine adjustment term
( 2
- p =0.9843, p= 0.6343)

16. 12
7. Gray langur:
Model: Hazard rate with cosine adjustment term
( 2
- p =0.9819, p= 0. 3528)
8. Peafowl:
Model: Half normal with cosine adjustment term
( 2
- p =0.9037, p= 0.383)

17. 13
9. Feral cattle
Model: Uniform with cosine adjustment term
( 2
- p =0.9591, p= 0. 5642)