Cited by 102Wildlife Ecology and ConservationWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Population recovery patterns of Southeast Asian ungulates after poaching

Steinmetz, Robert, Chutipong, Wanlop, Seuaturien, Naret, Chirngsaard, Erb, Khaengkhetkarn, Montri·2010·Biological Conservation

Abstract

Large ungulate populations in Southeast Asia have collapsed due to commercial poaching, but little is known about patterns of population recovery after poaching has been controlled. Using a sign-based index of abundance, we measured 6-year trends in abundance and habitat use of five ungulate species after poaching ceased at a site in Thailand. Regression slopes of annual indices against time indicated population growth rates (r) of 0.44 and 0.31 for muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) and gaur (Bos gaurus), respectively-close to the intrinsic rates of natural increase for similarly-sized ungulates. Thus, muntjac and gaur can recover relatively rapidly from low population levels. In contrast, sambar (Cervus unicolor) remained consistently rare despite freedom from hunting, perhaps because prime males had been selectively targeted for trophies, disrupting the species mating system. Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) were already relatively abundant when monitoring started, illustrating their resilience to hunting and ability to quickly recolonize disturbed areas. Gaur herds (the key demographic unit of the population) and muntjac consistently selected deciduous over evergreen forest as their populations increased, revealing the importance of food-rich deciduous forest in driving recovery of these species. The unexpected failure of sambar to recover suggests that reproductive behavior may override seemingly positive interventions (i.e., stopping poaching) that reduce mortality. Small but well-protected recovery zones set within forested areas might help propel population recovery of ungulates and increase the prey base for endangered tigers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.08.023

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Thailand, a population of B. gaurus recovering after poaching selected deciduous over evergreen forest.

    “In Thailand, a population of B. gaurus recovering after poaching selected deciduous over evergreen forest (Steinmetz et al. 2010).”

    From Bos frontalis and Bos gaurus (Artiodactyla: Bovidae) (2018) · cites this paper as Steinmetz et al. 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steinmetz, R., Chutipong, W., Seuaturien, N., Chirngsaard, E., & Khaengkhetkarn, M.
Affiliations
  • World Wildlife Fund (US)
  • Department of National Parks Wildlife and Plant Conservation (TH)
Corresponding author
Steinmetz, Robert
Venue
Biological Conservation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
143
Issue
1
Pages
42-51
ISSN
0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002230000
Cited by
102
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biological Conservation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
poaching, muntjac, gaur, sambar, wild pigs, habitat use, deciduous forest, trophy hunting, mating systems, population growth rate, wildlife conservation, Southeast Asia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review