Advertisement

Habitat Suitability Assessment of Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors) in Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, Maharashtra (India) Using Remote Sensing and GIS

  • A. O. VargheseEmail author
  • V. B. Sawarkar
  • Y. L. P. Rao
  • A. K. Joshi
Research Article

Abstract

Ardeotis nigriceps, commonly known as Great Indian Bustard (GIB), is a Critically Endangered, Evolutionary Distinct and Globally Threatened (EDGE) and endemic species to the Indian subcontinent. GIB is under tremendous threat in its last strongholds and sliding inextricably towards extinction. The GIB sanctuary in Maharashtra (India) is one of the last refuges of the bird constituting an area of 8496 km2 spread over in seven talukas of Solapur and Ahemednagar districts. Major portion of the sanctuary (94.3 %) consists of privately owned lands under a variety of economic vocations and large number of villages and townships. In view of the legal restrictions relating to Protected Area under the Wildlife (Protection) Act of India 1972, the inhabitants of villages and townships faced a very difficult situation regarding use of their lands, development of properties and deriving benefits from planned local and regional development. This created conflict between local people and the forest department over the use of land, which necessitated the rationalization of the sanctuary. The objective of the present study was to map the suitable habitat of GIB in GIB Wildlife Sanctuary as an input for the realignment of the GIB Sanctuary by identifying areas that are important for the GIB. Main parameters considered for the habitat suitability assessments are, habit and habitat of GIB, slope, minimum patch size and disturbance sources. Based on the criteria derived for the ecological and biological requirements of GIB, binary deductive habitat suitability modeling has been done using remote sensing and GIS and prioritized the potential habitats of GIB. The net area of important suitable habitat of GIB in GIB sanctuary is 2304.99 km2 out of 8496.44 km2. The output of the present study has been used as an input by the committee (set by Honorable Supreme court of India) on rationalization of the GIB Sanctuary and the sanctuary has been rationalized with an area of 1222 km2.

Keywords

Habitat suitability assessment Deductive Great Indian Bustard Remote sensing GIS 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Erach Bharucha, Member, Committee on Rationalization of GIB Sanctuary (CRGIB) and Director, Bharti Vidya Peeth Institute of Environment Education and Research, Pune, Rahmani A.R., Member (CRGIB) and Director Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, for sharing their knowledge about habitat requirements and habits of the wildlife of GIB Sanctuary, especially GIB.

References

  1. Anon (2007). A background note on GIBWLS prepared by the Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Pune.Google Scholar
  2. Bhatia, H. M. (1986). Ecological study of the Great Indian Bustard. Indian Forester, 112(10), 908–913.Google Scholar
  3. Bird Life International (2001). Threatened birds of Asia: The Bird Life International red data book. Cambridge:Bird Life International.Google Scholar
  4. Champion, H. G., & Seth, S. K. (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forest Types in India (p. 404). New Delhi:Government of India.Google Scholar
  5. Corsi, F., De Leeuw, J. & Skidmore, A. K. (2000). Modeling species distribution with GIS. Proc. Research Techniques in Animal Ecology; controversies and consequences (Eds Boitani, L., Fuller, T. K.), Columbia University Press, ISBN0231501390 pp. 389–434.Google Scholar
  6. De Leeuw, J. & Albricht, R.C. (1996). Habitat evaluation, land evaluation for wildlife. Proc. Conference on the application of remotely sensed data and geographic information system (GIS) in environmental and natural resources assessment in Africa, Harare.Google Scholar
  7. Decker, D. J., Krasney, M. E., Goff, G. R., Smith, C. R., & Gross, D. W. (1991). Challenges I Conservation of Biological Resources, A Practitioner’s Guide. Oxford:Westview Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dutta, S., Rahmani, A. R., & Jhala, Y. V. (2012). Running out of time? The great Indian bustard Ardeotis nigriceps—status, viability, and conservation strategies. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 57(3), 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guisan, A., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2000). Predictive habitat distribution model in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 135(2–3), 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris, L.D. (1984). The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and Preservation of Biotic Diversity, Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. Hunter Jr., M. L. (1990). Wildlife, Forests and Forestry- Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity. N.J:Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Imam, E., Kushwaha, S. P. S., & Singh, A. (2013). Evaluation of suitable tiger habitat in Chandoli National Park, India, using multiple logistic regression. Ecological Modelling, 220, 3621–3629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IUCN (2014). The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2014.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Downloaded on 17 November 2014.
  14. Jenson, J. R. (2014). Introductory digital image processing: A remote sensing perspective. N.J.:Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Jetz W., Thomas, G., Joy, J., Redding, D., Hartemann, K., & Mooerset, A. (2014). Global distribution and conservation of evolutionary distinctness in birds. Current Biology. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(14)00270-X.
  16. Kushwaha, S. P. S., & Roy, P. S. (2000). Geospatial technology for wildlife habitat evaluation. Tropical Ecology, 43(1), 137–150.Google Scholar
  17. Kushwaha, S. P. S., Khan, A., Habib, B., Quadri, A., & Singh, A. (2004). Evaluation of sambar and muntjac habitats using geostatistical modelling. Current Science, 86(10), 390–1400.Google Scholar
  18. MacKenzie, D. I., & Kendall, W. L. (2002). How should detection probability be incorporated into estimates of relative abundance? Ecology, 83, 2387–2393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mathur, P. K., Lehmkuhl, J. F., & Sawarkar, V. B. (2002). Management of Forests in India for Biological Diversity and Forest Productivity, −a New Perspective, Vol. I, Concepts, Approaches and Project Overview, WII and USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
  20. Morrison, M.L., Marcot, B.G., & Mannan, R.W. (1998). Wildlife Habitat Relationships, Concepts and Applications; The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nandy, S., Kushwaha, S. P. S., & Gaur, P. (2012). Identification of swamp deer (Cervus duvauceli duvauceli Cuvier) potential habitat in Jhilmil Jheel Conservation Reserve, Uttarakhand, India using multi-criteria analysis. Environmental Management, 49, 902–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rahmani, A. R. (1986). Study of ecology of certain endangered species of wildlife and their abitats: the Great Indian Bustard (1985–86), BNHS, pp.50.Google Scholar
  23. Rahmani, A. R. (1989). The Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, Final Report (p. 234). Bombay:BNHS.Google Scholar
  24. Rahmani A. R., Jay Samant, Y.N., Rao, R. M., Ajith Kumar, C.R., Natrajan, V., Tiwari, J. K., Javed, S., & Kumar, S. (1997). The Study on the Ecology of Grasslands of the Indian Plains With Particular Reference to Their Endangered Fauna, Final Report, BNHS and Centre of Wildlife and Ornithology, pp 113.Google Scholar
  25. Rodgers, W. A., Sawarkar, V. B., Chaudhury, B. C., Katti, M., & Kumar, A. (1991). Techniques for Wildlife Census in India: A Field Manual. Dehradun:WII.Google Scholar
  26. Sawarkar, V. B. (2005). A Guide for Planning Wildlife Management in Protected Areas and Managed Landscapes. Dehradun:WII and Natraj Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Sawarkar, V. B., Bharucha, E., Rahmani, A. R. & Rao, Y. L. P. (2008). Report of the committee on rationalization of Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary in Maharashtra State, Government of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Department.Google Scholar
  28. Shendre, N. (2002). Management Plan for the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, 2002–03 to 2012–13, Government of Maharashtra.Google Scholar
  29. Tyre, A. J., Tenhumberg, B., Field, S. A., Niejalke, D., Parris, K., & Possingham, H. P. (2003). Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false negative error rates. Ecological Applications, 3, 790–780.Google Scholar
  30. Varghese, A. O., & Krishna Murthy, Y. V. N. (2006). Application of geoinformatic in conservation and management of rare and threatened plant species. Current Science, 96(6), 763–769.Google Scholar
  31. Varghese, A. O., & Menon, A. R. R. (1999). Ecological niches and amplitudes of rare, threatened and endemic trees of Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary. Current Science, 76(9), 1204–1208.Google Scholar
  32. Varghese, A. O., Joshi, A. K., & Krishna Murthy, Y. V. N. (2010). Mapping of realized and fundamental niches of threatened tree species using geoinformatics: a species level approach for sustaining biodiversity. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 38(3), 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vogiatzakis, I. N., (2003). GIS based modeling and Ecology : a review of tools and methods, Geographical paper No. 170, http://www.geog.rdg.ac.uk/Research/Papers/GP170.pdf.
  34. Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (1993). Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. Available at http://envfor.nic.in/legis/wildlife/wildlife1.html. Accessed 6 Nov 2008.
  35. Wintle, B. A., McCarthy, M. A., Parris, K. M., & Burgman, M. A. (2004). Precision and bias of methods for estimating point survey detection probabilities. Ecological Applications, 4, 703–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zarri, A. A., Rahmani, A. R., Singh, A., & Kushwaha, S. P. S. (2008). Habitat suitability assessment for the endangered Nilgiri Laughingthrush: a multiple logistic regression approach. Current Science, 94(11), 1487–1494.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society of Remote Sensing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. O. Varghese
    • 1
    Email author
  • V. B. Sawarkar
    • 3
  • Y. L. P. Rao
    • 2
  • A. K. Joshi
    • 1
  1. 1.Regional Remote Sensing Centre (RRSC) - Central, NRSCNagpurIndia
  2. 2.UIDAINew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Wildlife Institute of IndiaDehradunIndia

Personalised recommendations