Geology topics

K.K. Karanth

Publications and source records attributed to K.K. Karanth.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2010

Occurrence and distribution of Indian primates

Global and regional species conservation efforts are hindered by poor distribution data and range maps. Many Indian primates face extinction, but assessments of population status are hindered by lack of reliable distribution data. We estimated the current occurrence and distribution of 15 Indian primates by applying occupancy models to field data from a country-wide survey of local experts. We modeled species occurrence in relation to ecological and social covariates (protected areas, landscape characteristics, and human influences), which we believe are critical to determining species occurrence in India. We found evidence that protected areas positively influence occurrence of seven species and for some species are their only refuge. We found evergreen forests to be more critical for some primates along with temperate and deciduous forests. Elevation negatively influenced occurrence of three species. Lower human population density was positively associated with occurrence of five species, and higher cultural tolerance was positively associated with occurrence of three species. We find that 11 primates occupy less than 15% of the total land area of India. Vulnerable primates with restricted ranges are Golden langur, Arunachal macaque, Pig-tailed macaque, stump-tailed macaque, Phayre's leaf monkey, Nilgiri langur and Lion-tailed macaque. Only Hanuman langur and rhesus macaque are widely distributed. We find occupancy modeling to be useful in determining species ranges, and in agreement with current species ranking and IUCN status. In landscapes where monitoring efforts require optimizing cost, effort and time, we used ecological and social covariates to reliably estimate species occurrence and focus species conservation efforts. ?? Elsevier Ltd.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2009

Patterns and determinants of mammal species occurrence in India

Many Indian mammals face range contraction and extinction, but assessments of their population status are hindered by the lack of reliable distribution data and range maps. 2. We estimated the current geographical ranges of 20 species of large mammals by applying occupancy models to data from country-wide expert. We modelled species in relation to ecological and social covariates (protected areas, landscape characteristics and human influences) based on a priori hypotheses about plausible determinants of mammalian distribution patterns. 3. We demonstrated that failure to incorporate detection probability in distribution survey methods underestimated habitat occupancy for all species. 4. Protected areas were important for the distribution of 16 species. However, for many species much of their current range remains unprotected. The availability of evergreen forests was important for the occurrence of 14 species, temperate forests for six species, deciduous forests for 15 species and higher altitude habitats for two species. Low human population density was critical for the occurrence of five species, while culturally based tolerance was important for the occurrence of nine other species. 5. Rhino Rhinoceros unicornis, gaur Bos gaurus and elephant Elephas maximus showed the most restricted ranges among herbivores, and sun bear Helarctos malayanus, brown bear Ursus arctos and tiger Panthera tigris were most restricted among carnivores. While cultural tolerance has helped the survival of some mammals, legal protection has been critically associated with occurrence of most species. 6. Synthesis and applications. Extent of range is an important determinant of species conservation status. Understanding the relationship of species occurrence with ecological and socio-cultural covariates is important for identification and management of key conservation areas. The combination of occupancy models with field data from country-wide experts enables reliable estimation of species range and habitat associations for conservation at regional scales. ?? 2009 British Ecological Society.

Journal of Applied Ecology↗

USGS2006

Comparative dynamics of avian communities across edges and interiors of North American ecoregions

Aim Based on a priori hypotheses, we developed predictions about how avian communities might differ at the edges vs. interiors of ecoregions. Specifically, we predicted lower species richness and greater local turnover and extinction probabilities for regional edges. We tested these predictions using North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data across nine ecoregions over a 20-year time period. Location Data from 2238 BBS routes within nine ecoregions of the United States were used. Methods The estimation methods used accounted for species detection probabilities < 1. Parameter estimates for species richness, local turnover and extinction probabilities were obtained using the program COMDYN. We examined the difference in community-level parameters estimated from within exterior edges (the habitat interface between ecoregions), interior edges (the habitat interface between two bird conservation regions within the same ecoregion) and interior (habitat excluding interfaces). General linear models were constructed to examine sources of variation in community parameters for five ecoregions (containing all three habitat types) and all nine ecoregions (containing two habitat types). Results Analyses provided evidence that interior habitats and interior edges had on average higher bird species richness than exterior edges, providing some evidence of reduced species richness near habitat edges. Lower average extinction probabilities and turnover rates in interior habitats (five-region analysis) provided some support for our predictions about these quantities. However, analyses directed at all three response variables, i.e. species richness, local turnover, and local extinction probability, provided evidence of an interaction between habitat and region, indicating that the relationships did not hold in all regions. Main conclusions The overall predictions of lower species richness, higher local turnover and extinction probabilities in regional edge habitats, as opposed to interior habitats, were generally supported. However, these predicted tendencies did not hold in all regions.

Journal of Biogeography↗