Abstract
Overgrazing by livestock is a serious threat to the biodiversity in the tropical forests of Asia. Feral horse, an introduced species at Point Calimere Wildlife Sanctuary, is a grazer and overlaps extensively in space and food resources with blackbuck, a native species, and thus could be a potential competitor. We have assessed, between December 2012 and June 2013, if the ecological conditions in the study site favour competition between these two species by assessing their spatial distribution pattern, population density, and dietary overlap. Spatial distribution pattern on direct sighting of both the species across habitats revealed that feral horses ranged mostly in the southern and southeastern parts of the sanctuary, in areas mostly with open grasslands, overlapping extensively in space with blackbuck, a grassland habitat specialist of the sanctuary. Population density estimated using line-transect distance sampling method showed 50 (95% CI 41.6–60.6) blackbucks and 21 (15.2–30.0) feral horses per km2 of the sanctuary. Dietary overlap assessed through site examination of feeding trails revealed that out of 14 plant species identified from blackbuck diet during the study period, 12 (86%) were also consumed by feral horses. Similarly, food plants such as Cloris parpata, a grass species, and herb Desmodiam dryflorae, the principal food of blackbuck, were also the major food plants of feral horses. Further, estimation of food consumption rate showed that feral horse consumed significantly more food per unit time (2.8 ± 0.08 g/min) than black-buck (1.7 ± 0.07 g/min). Dietary overlap estimated using Schoener’s Index showed a significant overlap between the two species (overall 89% and habitat-wise 85–90%). An analysis of food preference using Jacob’s Preference Index revealed that all the preferred food plants of the blackbuck were equally preferred by feral horses indicating significant overlap in the diet species composition. Although the density estimate revealed a lesser number of feral horses per capita than blackbuck, the higher food consumption rate of the former coupled with larger body mass, could outweigh the higher density of blackbuck and the same is discussed as an effective ecological competitor. Based on the findings appropriate recommendations are made for the management of blackbuck in the sanctuary.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agoramoorthy, G., 2010. Global Wildlife Conservation An Ecologist’s Jungle Journal. Lambert Academic Publishing, Berlin.
Augustine, D.J., Springer, T.L., 2014. Competition and facilitation between a native and a domestic herbivore: trade-offs between forage quantity and quality, Ecol. Appl. 23 (4), 850–863.
Ali, R., 2005. Field studies for the conservation and management of point Calimere Complex. Foundation for Ecological Research, Advocacy and Learning. A Report for the Tamil Nadu Forest Department. 40.
Baskaran, N., Kannan, V., Thiyagesan, K., Desai, A.A., 2011. Behavioural ecology of four-horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis Blainville, 1816) in the tropical forests of southern India. J. Mam. Biol. 76, 741–747, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2011.06.010
Baskaran, N., Anbarasan, U, Agoramoorthy, G., 2012. India’s Biodiversity hotspot under anthropogenic pressure—a case study of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, J. Nat. Conserv. 20, 56–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.08.004
Beever, E.A., Brussard, P.F., 2000. Examining ecological consequences of feral horse grazing using exclosures West, North Am. Nat. 60, 236–254.
Belovsky, G.E., 1986. Generalist herbivore foraging and its role in competitive interactions, Am. Zool. 26, 51–69.
Buecher, M.K., 1950. Life history, ecology and range use of the prophorn antelope in Trans-Pecoos, Texas, Am. Mid. Nat. 43, 257–354.
Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J.L., Borchers, D.L., Thomas, L., 2004. Advanced Distance Sampling. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 414 pp.
Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., Laake, L.L., 1980. Estimation of density from line transects sampling of biological population. Wildl. Monogr. 72, 202pp.
Caughley, G., Sinclair, A.R.E., 1994. Wildlife Ecology and Management. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Daniel, R.J.R., Arivazhagan, C, 2008. The Indian blackbuck recovery from the brink of extinction in Chennai, India, Oryx 42, 481–488.
Darmon, G., Bourgoin, G., Marchand, P., Garel, M., Dubrey, D., Jullien, M.J., Loison, A., 2014. Do ecologically close species shift their daily activities when in sympatry? Atest on Chamois inthe presence of Mouflon, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 111, 621–626.
Diamond, J.M., 1975. Assembly of species communities. In: Cody, M.L., Diamond, J.M. (Eds.), Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 342–444.
Duncan, P., 1992. Horses and Grasses: The Nutritional Ecology of Equids and Their Impact on the Camargue. Springer, New-York, pp. 287pp.
Ferretti, F., Sforzi, A., Lovari, S., 2011. Behavioural interference between ungulate species: roe are not on velvet with fallow deer, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 875–887.
Ferretti, F., Lovari, S., 2014. Introducing aliens: problems associated with invasive exotics. In: Putnam, R., Aplloni, M. (Eds.), Behaviour and Management of European Mngulates. Whittles Publishing, pp. 78–109.
Gause, G.F., 1934. The Struggle for Existence. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.
Gordon, I.J., Hester, A.J., Festa-Bianchet, M., 2004. The management of wild large herbivores to meet economic, conservation and environmental objectives, J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 1021–1031.
Gogan, P.J.P., Barrett, R.H., 1995. Elk and deer diets in a coastal prairie-scrub mosaic, California, J. Range Manage. 48, 327–335.
Hansen, R.M., Reid, L.D., 1975. Diet overlap of deer, elk, and cattle in southern Colorado, J. Range Manage. 28, 43–47.
Hahn Jr. H.C., 1945. The white-tailed deer in the Edwards Plateau of Texas Texas Game and Fish and Oyster Comm. pp. 52.
IUCN, 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2015-3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 20 October 2015 at 16:53 h.
IUCN, 2000. Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasive Species Gland, Switzerland : SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group.
Isvaran, K., 2004. Female grouping best predicts lekking in blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 283–294.
Jagdish, P., 2011. Tamil Nadu Forest Department Management Plan for Point Calimere Wildlife Sanctuary (1.4.2012 to 31.3.2017).
Jacobs, P.J., 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection: a mechanism of the forage ratio and Ivlev’s selectivity Index, Oecologia 14, 413–417.
Kleynhans, E.J., Jolles, A.E., Bos, M.R.E., Olff, H., 2011. Resource partitioning along multiple niche dimensions in differently sized African savannah grazers, Oikos 120, 59–600.
Krausman, P.R., Ables, E.D., 1981. Ecology ofthe Carmen Mountains white-tailed deer. National Park Service, Scientific Monograph, Series 15.
Long, J.L, 2003. Introduced Mammals ofthe World: Their History, Distribution and Influence. CSIRO Publication, Victoria, Australia, pp. 486–487.
Lorvaas, A.L., 1958. Mule deer food habits and range Little Belt mountains in Montana, J. Range Manage. 22, 275–283.
Maldron, D.P., 2008. Antilope cervicapra In: IUCN 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1. <www.iucnredlist.org> accessed on 23 August 2009.
Morrison, M.L, Marcot, B.G., Mannan, R.W., 1998. Wildlife-habitat Relationships, second edition. University of Wiscons in Press, Madison.
Mungall, E.C., Patel, B.H., Prasad, N.L.N.S., Dougherty, S.E., 1981. Conservation and management ofthe Indian Antelope (Aetilope cervicpra). Joint US-Indian Blackbuck Project, Final report pp. 111.
Muralidharan, S., 1985. Foraging ecology of blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) and its interaction with cattle. In: M.Sc. Dissertation Division of Post-Graduate Studies in Wildlife Biology. A.V.C. College, Mayiladuthurai.
Mysterud, A., 2000. Deit overlap among ruminants in Fennoscandia, Oecologia 124, 130–137.
Niamir-Fuller, M., Kervan, C, Reid, R., Milner-Gulland, E., 2012. Co-existence of wildlife and pastoralism on extensive rangelands: competition or compatibility? Pastoralism 2 (8), 2–14.
Nichols, R., 2012. Coexistence in ungulate communities: Niches, Resource partitioning, Competition and Facilitation. Introductory Research Essay. No. 17. Department of Wildlife, fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83, Umea, Sweden. 13 pages.
Nedumaran, R., 1987. Influence of blackbuckat Point Calimere sanctuary. In: M.Sc. Dissertation. Department of Zoology, A.V.C. College (Autonomous), Mannampadal, Myiladuthurai.
Pordomingo, A.J., Rucci, T., 2000. Red deer and cattle diet composition in La Pampa, Argentina, J. Range Manage. 53, 649–654.
Prins, H.H.T., Fritz, H., 2008. Species diversity of browsing and grazing ungulates: consequences forthe structure and abundance of secondary production, Ecol. Stud. 195, 179–200.
Prins, H.H.T., Olff, H., 1998. Species richness of African grazer assemblages: towards a functional explanation. In: Newbery, D.M., Prins, H.H.T., Brown, N.D. (Eds.), Dynamics of Tropical Communities Symposia of the British Ecological Society, 37. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 449–490.
Putman, R.J., Sharma, S.K., 1987. Long term changes in New Forest deer populations and correlated environmental change, Symp. Zool. Soc. London 58, 167–179.
Ramasubramaniyan, S., 2012. Management plan for Point Calimere Wildlife Sanctuary ramsar.org. 2012 https://doi.org/www.pointcalimere.org/overview.htm accessed on 11/20/2012 at 15:34 h.
Ranjitsinh, M.K., 1989. The Indian Blackbu, Natraj, Dehradun, India, 156pp. Ritchie, M.E., Olff, H., 1999. Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400, 557–560.
Sanders, K.D., Dahl, B.E., Scott, G., 1976. Bite-count versus fecal analysis for range animal diets, J. Range Manage. 22 (2), 146–149.
Schoener, T.W., 1968. Anolis lizards of Bimini—resource partitioning in a complex fauna, Ecology 49, 704–724.
Schipper, J., Chanson, J.S., Chiozza, F., Cox, N.A., Hoffmann, M., 2008. The status of the World’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge, Science 322, 225–230.
Shrestha, R., Wegge, P., 2008. Habitat relationships between wild and domestic ungulates in Nepalese trans-Himalaya, J. Arid Environ. 72, 914–925.
Shrestha, R., Wegge, P., 2006. Determining the composition of herbivore diets in the Trans-Himalayan Rangelands: a comparison of field methods, Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 59, 512–518.
Stone, L., Roberts, A., 1990. The checkerboard score and species distributions, Oecologia 85, 74–79.
Thill, R.E., Martin, A., 1985. Deer and cattle diet overlap on Louisiana pine-bluestem range, J. Wildl. Manage. 50, 707–713.
Thomas, L., Laake, J.L., Strindberg, S., Marques, F.F.C., Buckland, S.T., Borchers, D.L., Anderson, K.P., Burnham, D.R., Hedley, S.L., Pollard, J.H., Bishop, J.R.B., Marques, T.A., 2005. DISTANCE, version 5.0, beta 5. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St. Andrews, United Kingdom. [Online] Available at www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/distance/. Downloaded on 20 October 2013 at 13:30 h.
Valeix, M., Chamaille-Jammes, S., Fritz, H., 2007. Interference competition and temporal niche shifts: elephants and herbivore communities at waterholes, Oecologia 153 (3), 739–748.
Vilà, M., Basnou, C, Pysek, P., Josefsson, M., Genovesi, P., 2010. How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A Pan-European, crosstaxa assessment, Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 135–144.
Wallamo, O.C., Gill, R.N., Carpenter, L.H., Reichert, D.W., 1973. Accuracy of field estimate of deer food habitats, J. Wild. Manage. 37, 556–562.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baskaran, N., Ramkumaran, K. & Karthikeyan, G. Spatial and dietary overlap between blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) and feral horse (Equus caballus) at Point Calimere Wildlife Sanctuary, Southern India: Competition between native versus introduced species. Mamm Biol 81, 295–302 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2016.02.004
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2016.02.004