Patterns and determinants of mammal species occurrence in India
Open accessAbstract
Summary 1. 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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Today, Bos gaurus is primarily confined to forested areas (dry and moist deciduous, semi-evergreen, and evergreen) and hilly terrain (< 2,500 m) in India and across much of its distribution in Southeast Asia.
“Today,Bos gaurus is primarily confined to forested areas (dry and moist deciduous, semi-evergreen, and evergreen) and hilly terrain (< 2,500 m) in India and across much of its distribution in Southeast Asia (Choudhury 2002;Karanth et al. 2009;Ahrestani et al. 2012a).”
From Bos frontalis and Bos gaurus (Artiodactyla: Bovidae) (2018) · cites this paper as Karanth et al. 2009
The Land Cover and Elevation section and Table 3 report positive associations between gaur occurrence and evergreen and deciduous forests in India; the Abstract describes gaur as having a restricted range. The paper does not establish the specified forest subtypes, a hilly-terrain limit below 2,500 m, or the claim about Southeast Asia. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 161
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Royle, J.A., Pollock, K.H., Bailey, L.A. & Hines, J.E. (2006). Occupancy Modeling and Estimation. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
- Madhusudan, M.D. & Karanth, U.K. (2005). Local hunting and large mam- mal conservation. Wildlife Conservation, Research and Management (eds Y.V. Jhala, R. Chellam & Q. Qureshi), pp. 60-67. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
- Authors
- Karanth, K. K., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Karanth, K. U., & Christensen, N. L.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- United States Geological Survey (US)
- Corresponding author
- Karanth, Krithi K.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-11-26
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1189-1200
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W2051869117
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 7.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Ecology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Conservation, Food and Health Foundation
- Wildlife Conservation Society
- Idea Wild
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
- Keywords
- occupancy models, detection probability, protected areas, habitat associations, evergreen forest, human population density, cultural tolerance, rhinoceros, gaur, elephants, sun bear, brown bear, tiger, large mammals, conservation status, India
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