CONTENTS Page No.

Executive summary ……………………………………………………………. i

Chapter I. Introduction …………………………………………………………. 1- 4

Background ……………………………………………………… 1
Gaur in North Bengal ……………………………………………. 2
Objectives ………………………………………………………... 3

Chapter II. Study Area …………………………………………………………. 5-8

Chapter III. Population status and dynamics ………………………………….. 9 - 24

Preliminary reconnaissance survey ……………………………... 9
Population size ………………………………………………….. 10
Methods ………………………………………………………… 11
Results …………………………………………………………… 15
Population Structure …………………………………………… 17
Methods …………………………………………………………. 17
Results …………………………………………………………... 18
Discussion ………………………………………………………. 23

Chapter IV. Habitat use pattern ………………………………………………. 25 - 30

Introduction …………………………………………………… 25
Methods ……………………………………………………….. 25
Results ………………………………………………………….. 27
Discussion ……………………………………………………… 29

Chapter V. Feeding Habitat ………………………………………………… 31

Methods ………………………………………………………… 31
Results …………………………………………………………. 32
Discussion ………………………………………………………. 34

Chapter VI. Human Gaur Conflict …………………………………………… 35 - 39

Introduction ……………………………………………………. 35
Methods ………………………………………………………… 35
Results …………………………………………………………. 36
Discussion ………………………………………………………. 39
Chapter VII. Carrying capacity …………………………………...........…........ 40 - 41

Chapter VIII. Management recommendations ………………………………… 42 - 44

References ………………………………………………………………………. 45 - 47

Plates ……………………………………………………………………………. 48 - 49
Suggested citation: Lahkar, B. P., J. P. Das, A. Sinha, A. Boruah, A. Saha, R. Saha&A. Das
(2021). Ecology of Gaur (Bos gaurus) in North Bengal including population dynamics, Gaur
distribution, habitat use pattern, protected area wise carrying capacity estimation and Human
conflict. Final report submitted to West Bengal Forest Department, Government of West Bengal.
56pp.
Executive Summary

The gaur population in India is restricted to a few states including the Northern part of West
Bengal. As this landscape is contiguous with Bhutan, Bangladesh and Nepal, North Bengal
forms a key conservation area for gaurs. The gaurs are predominantly forest-dwelling bovids,
with preference for evergreen and moist deciduous forests; but also occurs in the dry deciduous
forests. The forests of North Bengal support a healthy population of gaurs, but mostly confined
to the protected areas. During a survey conducted by West Bengal Forest Department in 2002, a
total of 1261gaurs were reported. However, ecological studies on gaurs are limited from the
region.

The landscape is fragmented with little connectivity among the forested areas. This has
considerably increased the straying of gaurs, and thus increased human-gaur confrontations
around the fringe areas. We conducted this study from 2016 to 2020 to understand the ecology of
the species with support from West Bengal Forest Department and Biodiversity Conservation
Project.

To understand the distribution of the species across the landscape we conducted a grid-based
survey using grid cells of 4km x 4km size. Based on the information of the survey, we attempted
to estimate gaur population abundance using the standard Distance Sampling framework, which
has been extensively used to estimate population density of herbivores across Asia. Within the
Distance Sampling approach, we adopted line transect sampling protocol and estimated the gaur
population abundance at 3962± 680, with the highest density at the Gorumara National Park.
Further, we investigated the population structure of the gaurs in our study area. The estimated
sex ratio of the population was 1:3.14 (male:female) and the age structure was recorded as
68.7:17.6:13.7 (Adult:Sub-adult:Juvenile/calf). The mean herd size was found to be 15.12 ±
2.36.

We investigated the habitat use pattern by gaurs at finer scale, wherein we categorised nine
habitat types within the study area. We used Manly’s preference index to describe the habitat
preference of gaurs. In our study area the gaurs were found most abundantly in the
semievergreen forests, with a strong preference for this habitat type. The semievergreen forests
were used more than its availability. The other habitat typesused in proportion to its availability

i
are the mixed forests and grasslands. During the study, the gaurs were found to use the tea
gardens, as the tea gardens occur at the edge of forests. Using direct observation technique, we
identified 32 species of plants that are used by gaurs as their dietary item.

During our study period we recorded 90 human-gaurconflict incidents in the landscape which
mostly included gaur stray-out to the nearby villages, and crop-raids. The Jalpaiguri District and
the Gorumara National Park witnessed the maximum number of straying cases. There are very
few incidents of human fatalities.

We attempted to estimate the gaur carrying capacity in the forested areas of northern West
Bengal. Though we did not have any primary data for estimating the carrying capacity as it
requires long-term data, which was beyond the capacity of the project; we “borrowed” data from
available literature to get an estimate. We found that the study area can support approximately
5479 gaurs based on habitat and biomass availability, and assuming no human pressure. We also
provide a set of recommendations that may be implemented for ensuring the survival of the
species.

ii
 Chapter I: Introduction

1.1 Background
The gaur Bos gaurus is the largest bovid species in the world, with adults weighing up to 900 kg
(Prater 1980). It is categorized as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List (Duckworth et al. 2016), with
a decreasing population trend. Once distributed throughout South and Southeast Asia, but
currently occurring in fragmented populations of the original distributional range in India, Nepal,
Bhutan Cambodia, China, Lao PDR, Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia), Myanmar, Thailand, and
Viet Nam (Fig. 1). The species became extinct in Sri Lanka, and its presence in Bangladesh is
questionable (Duckworth et al. 2016). Karanth et al. (2010), estimated approximately 60% range
reduction of the species in the past 50 years. Nonetheless, India is the stronghold of gaur
population, distributed in four major regions such as the Western Ghats, Eastern Ghats, Central
India and the northeast India (Choudhury 2002).

Figure 1: Global distribution of gaur Bos gaurus, adopted from Duckworth et al. 2016 (IUCN
Red list).
1
The northeast India population covers North Bengal as well as other states of the NE India. The
habitat is contiguous with that of the transboundary landscapes of Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar
and Nepal (Choudhury 2002). In the north Bengal region, the gaur is found in the Himalayan
foothills of the Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri and Alipurduar districts (Choudhury 2002).

The gaurs are predominantly forest-dwelling bovids, with preference for evergreen and moist
deciduous forests; but also occurs in the dry deciduous forests (Schaller 1967). They are bulk
feeders (Hofmann 1989), and their diet mostly consists of grasses, browse, and herbs (Chetri
2006, Sankar et al. 2013, Haleem &Ollyas 2018). The gaurs live in social groups and the group
size may vary with sites (Ramesh et al. 2012).

Despite being a charismatic and large mammal species, there are very few studies on gaurs.
Information on animal population abundance is crucial for scientific management of the wildlife
(Huapeng et al. 1997). However, it requires a huge effort to estimate gaur population densities as
the animals occur in dense forest habitats at low population density (Ahrestani&Karanth 2014).
The population densities of gaurs varied from 0.6 to 11.3 per km2 (Karanth& Nichols 2000,
Karanth et al. 2001, 2008; Karanth& Kumar 2005). A study by Kumar (2010) in southern India
has shown that the gaurs are known to be benefitted from higher level of protection and are also
negatively impacted by anthropogenic activities.

1.2 Gaur in North Bengal

In North Bengal, the gaur population is mainly confined to the protected areas. Bhattacharyya,
Choudhury & Biswas (1997) estimated a population size of 1000-1200 gaurs, mainly occurring
in the Buxa Tiger Reserve, Jaldapara, Gorumara, Mahananda, Chapramari and Neora Valley
protected areas. Subsequently, the gaur number was put at 1261 during the census conducted by
the West Bengal Forest Department in 2002. In subsequent censuses by the Forest Department
in 2010 and 2012, the gaur population was estimated to be 2,000 and 4,000, respectively across
the North Bengal region*.

*(https://www.telegraphindia.com/west-bengal/food-chain-imbalance-swells-bison-count/cid/348792. 2
The gaur habitat in northern West Bengal is highly fragmented, with very little to no connectivity
among the forested areas (Choudhury 2002). This has considerably increased the human-gaur
conflict (HGC) around the fringe zones of the gaur-bearing areas.

Aaranyak conducted an ecological study on the species to gain an overall insight into the current
status of the gaur population and to assess the ecological parameters, so as to come-up
withinformed conservation recommendations. The study was commissioned by West Bengal
Forest Department and Biodiversity Conservation Project with support from JICA and conducted
from 2016 to 2020.

The straying of gaurs and the consequent conflicts with local people increased in recent years
owing to loss of habitat, increase in both number and area of human settlements leading to
habitat loss and fragmentation of the gaur habitat. Large number of tea estates, with their human
population, in the adjacent areas of the forest land across the entire landscape is also a major
reason for human-gaur interaction in the region. It has been noted that there has been a steady
increase in gaur population in the protected areas of Northern districts of West Bengal,
especially, in Gorumara NP, Chapramari WLS and Buxa Tiger Reserve. This may lead to more
conflicts in the fringe areas. This final report presents the details of the three-year study, its
findings and a set of management recommendations.

1.3 Objectives

The overall goal of the study was to investigate the ecology of gaur in North Bengal landscape
and develop a management plan for the species. To achieve the goal the study has set the
following objectives:

1. To study gaur ecology in North Bengal landscape.

- To assess the population size
- To assess the population structure
- To assess the habitat use pattern
- To study the feeding habit

3
2. To assess the gaur-carrying capacity in different protected areas of North Bengal.
3. To analyse the human-gaur conflict in the entire North Bengal landscape
- To assess the present status of human gaur conflict
- To develop plan for minimizing human-gaur conflict.
4. To develop the management plan of the species with suggestions from the Forest Department
and other concerned authorities.

4
 Chapter II: Study Area

2.1 Study Sites

The landscape of North Bengal encompasses a total geographical area of 12800 km 2 (Source –
GIS Lab, Aaranyak) (Map 1). Of these, at least 3306 km2 is forest area and approximately 1600
km2 is considered to be gaur habitat (Source-GIS Lab, Aaranyak). The gaur habitat size is based
on the total size of all the PAs and non-PA areas where gaur was previously reported. The
landscape is divided into five administrative districts viz. Darjeeling, Kalimpong, Jalpaiguri,
Alipurduar and Coochbehar (Map 2). There are nine forest divisions within the North Bengal
landscape and five Protected areas (Table 1).

Table 1: Details of the Protected Areas of Northern West Bengal.

Sl. No. Protected Area Area (in km2) Key Biodiversity

1. Buxa Tiger Reserve 760 Elephants, Gaur, Leopard
2. Gorumara National Park 80 One-horned rhinoceros, Spotted
Deer, Hog Deer, Gaurs
3. Jaldapara National Park 216.5 One-horned rhinoceros, Hog
Deer, Gaur
4. Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary 158 Rufous-necked hornbill, Gaur
5. Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary 9.6 Gaur, elephants
6. Neora Valley 88 Rhododendron, Leopard, Asiatic
Black Bear, Gaurs

The entire landscape is criss-crossed by numerous rivers like Mechi, Teesta, Torsa, Raidak,
Jainti, Dima, Basra, Diana, Murti, Jaldhaka, Neora, Leesh-Gheesh, Balaso to name a few. Our
study area covers all these administrative districts including the protected areas and non-
protected territorial divisions. The region is included in the lower Ganga plain excluding the
Darjeeling district, which falls under the Eastern Himalayas. The landscape can be broadly
classified into three major geomorphic units as follows:

5
  The Hilly Region of North Bengal
 The Terai and the Dooars Region
 The Plains of the North Bengal

The altitude ranges within 600m to 3000 m. The Terai and Dooars region is covered by alluvium
deposits, consisting of coarse gravels at the foot hills, sandy clay and sand along the course of
the rivers, and fine sand consolidating into clay in the other parts of the river plain. The river
Jaldhaka, Mechi and Rangit flows in the east, west and north portion of the region respectively,
while in the middle, the river Balason, Mahananda, Teesta, Leesh-Ghees, Murti are known to
flow. The average rainfall of the region is 250 cm to 300 cm. The forest types range from
tropical evergreen in the foothills, through temperate evergreen in the middle ranges, to the
coniferous in the higher elevations. The tropical evergreen forests are found below 1,000 m
where sal, teak, peepul, sishu, bamboo are the dominant species.

The socio-economy of the region is based on agriculture while other activities are also
noticeable. The region has witnessed a growth in manufacturing industries in recent years. Tea
plantation is a major production hub in the region. The main crops cultivated are rice, wheat,
mustard, jute and fruits.

6
 Kalimpong

Darjeeling

Jalpaiguri Alipurduar

Coochbehar

Map 1: Map of the entire landscape with the district boundaries.

7
Map 2: Map of the entire landscape with the protected areas and district boundary classified.

8
 Chapter III: Population Status and Structure

3.1 Population status and structure

Preliminary reconnaissance survey
October 2016 – December 2016
At the beginning of the study, we conducted rapid reconnaissance presence-absence survey of
gaurs in the entire landscape of North Bengal. This also helped in selecting the sampling sites.
Initially, the landscape was gridded into 16 km2 (4 km x 4 km) blocks and the total number of
blocks were 952 in the entire landscape. We surveyed 230 blocks to understand the occurrence
pattern of gaur and reported the presence of gaur from only 36 grids (around 16% of the total
surveyed grids) (Map 3).

Map 3. Map depicting the first grid- based presence-absence survey during October to December
2016.

9
December 2017 – February 2018

Another survey to document the gaur occurrence was carried out during December 2017 to
February 2018, so that few more areas can be encompassed during this phase of the survey,
besides noting any new areas where gaur has moved to in the current year. We sampled 186
blocks and found the presence of gaurs in 40 blocks (Map 4). We could not ascertain gaur
presence in 146 blocks.

Map 4. Map depicting the second grid- based presence-absence survey of gaurs during
December 2017- February 2018.

3.1.1 Population size

Assessing the population of any large mammal is always a challenge. To estimate the gaur
population in the forests of north Bengal was a major challenge because of the dense vegetation
and low density in certain areas. Additionally, the low sighting instances always pose a concern
10
in analysing the data. To overcome the limitation, we have conducted rigourous sampling with
increased number of spatial replicates. During 2012, the population of gaur in the protected areas
of North Bengal was around 4000 (Census, 2012) although it was not clear what methodology
was followed to derive this estimate.

3.2 Methods

The line transect method following direct count, within the Distance Sampling framework is the
most reliable and used method for gaur population estimation in the range countries (Jathanna et
al. 2003). Hence, we adopteddistance sampling protocol using line transects to conduct the study.
At first, the entire landscape was stratified on the basis of habitat type (in terms of vegetation)
using GIS based map into (4 x 4) km2 blocks.

3.2.1 Transect layout

Layout of transects were systematically done (to maximise map coverage) using (4 x 4) km2 grid
in the study area (Map 5). The selection of the transect sites was done based on the
reconnaissance survey. Maps 6, 7, 8, and 9 give the layout of transects in the various PAs in the
study area. The transect length varied from 1 km to 2.5 km based on accessibility of the area.
The team walked in a straight line along the transect, scanning both sides of the habitat for direct
sighting of gaur. Once an individual or a group of gaurs was encountered, the radial distance and
sighting angle were noted with the help of range finder and compass, from the first sighted
location. The transects were one off transects and were spatial replicates. A total of 262 transects
were laid covering a total distance of 352 km in the entire north Bengal landscape covering
different habitat types. The details of the transects in different Forest Divisions are given in
Table 2.

11
 Table 2. Details of the line transect survey in the study area.

Effect
ive
No of Average Max Total length of
Division Min (km) Strip
transects length (km) transects (km)
Widt
h (m)
Buxa TR
(East and 62 1.4 2.5 0.8 123.2 86.8
West)
Jaldapara 52 1.3 2.3 0.7 88.6 67.6
129.0
Gorumara 53 1.3 2.4 0.8 68.9
4
Mahananda 21 1.2 2.3 1 98.5 25.2
Baikunthpur 42 1.4 2 1.1 76.4 58.8

Kurseong 32 1.4 1.8 0.8 65.3 44.8

Total 262 1.33 352

Map 5. The lay-out of transect across the landscape.

12
 Map 6. The lay-out of transects in Jaldapara National Park.

Map 7. The lay-out of transects in Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary.

13
 Map 8. The lay-out of transects in Buxa Tiger Reserve.

Map 9. The lay-out of transects in Gorumara National Park.

14
3.2.2 Data analysis

We usedprogram DISTANCE v6.2 to analyse the data, which allows the selection of different
models and also includes a range of different options (Burnham et al. 1980). The probability of
detection was estimated using six models recommended by Buckland et al.(2001) combining
probability density function (uniform, half normal and hazard-rate) with adjustments (cosines,
simple and hermite polynomials). The model with the lowest Akaike’s Information Criterion
(AIC) was selected. The program automatically calculates the f(0) from the perpendicular
distance data. This is an estimate of the reciprocal of the ‘Effective Strip Width’ (ESW).

The density of gaur, D is then calculated by the following formula:

D = n.f (0)/2L
where,
n = number of gaurs sighted during transect sampling
L = total length of the transects

Variance of D and the confidence limits were estimated following Burnham et al. (1980). F (0) is
the probability density function of detected distances from the line, evaluated at zero distances
(Alfred et al. 2010). Further, density (D) was estimated for each habitat types and the population
size (N) were computed based on the size of the habitat area.
The data were stratified based on habitat types to detect separate detection function for each
habitat and the overall density was estimated by using the mean of each habitats weighted by the
habitat area. The model that generated the lowest AIC was considered as a reasonable density.

3.3 Results
A total of 1029 gaurs were recorded in 78 sighting occasions within and outside the transects.
The overall estimated population density of gaur was found to be 2.64/km2 (CV: 21.14%, 95%
CI: 1.94-3.38). No gaurs were recorded beyond 165 meters from the centre-line of the transects.
Extrapolating this density across the North Bengal landscape, the total population size was
estimated to be 3962 ± 680. The total area of the landscape used is the total area of all the PAs
(1312 km2) and additional 288 km2 for non-PAs (Baikunthpur and KurseongDivisions). The PA-
wise density estimation is summarised in Table 3.
15
 Table 3. The density estimation of Gaur population in various protected areas.

Number
of Density parameter
Transects (gaur/km2) Estimated Population Size
Protected Point % Coef. of Point
Area estimate SE Variation estimate SE 95 % CI
Buxa TR 62 1.87 0.53 15.97 1421 221.4 1202–1643
Jaldapara 52 3.24 0.71 19.87 701 164.32 539–868
Gorumara 53 7.86 0.67 15.83 629 112.5 201–358
Mahananda 21 2.31 0.87 21.24 365 145.24 218-514
Chapramari 8 3.2 0.65 25.54 31 18.7 17-49
Neora valley 18 1.25 0.21 18.09 111 21.4 87-134
Total Estimated Population Size in PAs 3258

The population density of gaur was recorded the highest in Garumara National Park (7.86 km2 ±
0.67) followed by population density of 3.24 km2 ±0.71 in Jaldapara National Park. The Neora
Valley had the lowest density (1.25 km2 ±0.21) with an estimated population size of 111
individuals. The Buxa Tiger Reserve including East and West Divisions support 1421 (CI: 1202-
1643) gaurs with a density of 1.87 km2 ±0.53.

We also estimated gaur population density at 2.45km2±0.79 in the non-protected areas of

Baikunthapur and KurseongDivisions, with an estimated population size of 704±147.

3.3.1 Limitation of the exercise

Like any other studies, this exercise of population estimation has its own limitations. While
estimating animal density, detection probability plays a crucial role.Line transect sampling is a
robust method that takes into account the critical issue of estimations of detection probabilities
within the surveyed areas (Jathanna et al. 2003). The detection probability for gaurs during this
study was calculated by the DISTANCE software which showed that in this case the overall
detection probability was 0.43 (43%) in the landscape. This implies that approximately 57% of
the population could have been missed if the detection probability was not accounted for. The
thick vegetation and tall grasses often restrict the visibility and detection. Besides, for logistic
16
reasons many of the transects counts were conducted during the noon time which limited the
sighting possibilities of animals.

3.4. Population structure

To estimate the population structure of gaurs, besides gaur-sightings during the transect surveys,
opportunistic sightings were recorded too. For each sighting, parameters such as age, sex, group
size and other population information were recorded. It has been recorded that group size varies
widely within and between species (Altmann 1974, Geist 1974,Jarman 1974, Rodman 1981).
The age structure of a population gives an idea on the population growth and estimating life
history parameters (Stearns 1992). Age structure of a population expressed as the distribution of
the number of individuals in each age-group reflects fecundity, mortality, reproductive status and
population change (Ramesh et al. 2012). It is an important measure of demographic change over
time (Caughly 1977); while sex ratio is an indicator of the reproductive potentiality of a species
(Ramesh et al.2012). A high percentage of young as compared to adults generally indicates a fast
growing or thriving population in contrast to a relatively smaller percentage of young that
usually indicates a sluggish rate of population increase (Ramesh et al. 2012).

3.5. Methods

We covered more than 90% of the gaur range on either foot or vehicle with regular and
systematic surveys along the forest-roads, animal trails and waterbodies; besides, the transect
surveys used for population estimation. During the surveys, all encounters with gaur herds were
documented and required parameters were noted. This methodology for age-sex structure
estimation can be termed as random and opportunistic approach. Whenever gaurs were sighted,
data on age and sex were collected. Although in few instances age-sex classification was not
possible because of dense vegetation and group movement. At every sighting information such
as date of sighting, place, vegetation type, age-sex, group size was collected based on Schaller
(1967) in a standard format. The sex identification was done based on morphological features as
described by Schaller (1967) and Sankar et al. (2001). Table 4 shows how the sex and age class
was identified in field based on Schaller (1967).

17
 Table 4. The various age class category used to assess the gaur.

Age-Sex Morphological features

category
Adult Possess a shiny black coat with heavy horns protruding sideways and
upwards and a large dewlap hanging below the chin, and gonad
Sub-adult Dark brown coat with a conspicuous dorsal ridge and a smaller dewlap,
large drapes between the fore legs, gonad
Juvenile 10–20 months old, 25–50% in size of sub-adult male with gonad

Adult Smaller than adult males, pelage is dark brown with more upright horns
corrugated inwards than in adult males
Sub-adult 50–75% in size of adult female lacking a conspicuous white stocking
Juvenile Light brown coat, 25 to 50% in size of sub-adult females without gonad
Small calf Light brown coloured coat, approx. <3 months old of <30 kg, golden
yellow pelage
Large calf Light brown to dark brown coloured coat of approx. 30 to 100 kg and half
the size of yearling females

3.6. Results

We sighted 1029 individuals of gaurs in 78 sighting instances (sightings and re-sightings) (Table
5 and Map 10). This includes sighting instances inside the protected area as well as near the
forest boundary. Resighting instances could not be ascertained because of difficulties in
identifying seen animals in dense forested landscape.

The sex ratio of the population was estimated to be 1: 3.14 (male: female), however, we
discarded at least 11 % individuals (n=112) as we could not identify their sex because of group
movement and thick vegetation (Fig. 2).

The age structure was found to be approximately 68.7:17.6:13.7 (in percentage) (n=1029) for
Adult: Sub-adult: Juvenile/calf respectively (Fig. 3)

The mean herd size encountered was 15.12 ± 2.36 (95 % CI) in the entire landscape. The
frequency of sighting smaller herd (1-5 gaur) was more as compared with the bigger herds
(n=41) (Fig. 4).

18
 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Male Female Unclassified

Figure 2.The percentage of male, female and unknown gaur individuals of the sighted groups during the
study.

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Adult Sub-Adult Calf

Figure 3. The age- class category of the observed gaur individuals in percentage in the study area.

19
 50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-above

Figure 4. The group size frequency of the observed gaur individuals.

Table 5. Details of gaur sighted on 78 occasions during the study period.

No. of gaur
Sl sighted in Sub Calf/
Male Female Unclassified Adult
no each Adult Juvenile
occasion
1 32 8 21 3 22 6 4
2 4 0 3 1 3 1 0
3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
4 3 0 3 0 3 0 0
5 2 2 0 0 2 0 0
6 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
7 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
8 2 0 1 1 1 0 1
9 4 1 3 0 4 0 0
10 4 1 2 1 3 0 1
11 7 1 4 2 4 1 2
12 8 1 5 2 6 0 2
13 7 1 5 1 5 2 0
14 57 13 35 9 42 9 6
15 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
16 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

20
 No. of gaur
Sl sighted in Sub Calf/
Male Female Unclassified Adult
no each Adult Juvenile
occasion
17 12 3 6 3 7 2 3
18 15 3 8 4 5 6 4
19 3 0 3 0 2 1 0
20 36 7 26 3 22 7 7
21 5 1 4 0 3 2 0
22 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
23 4 1 3 0 3 1 0
24 8 2 5 1 5 1 2
25 33 7 24 2 21 7 5
26 22 5 13 4 10 9 3
27 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
28 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
29 2 0 2 0 2 0 0
30 13 2 11 0 9 1 3
31 14 3 9 2 9 3 2
32 3 0 3 0 3 0 0
33 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
34 2 0 2 0 2 0 0
35 3 1 2 0 2 1 0
36 7 1 6 0 5 2 0
37 25 4 17 4 18 4 3
38 6 1 5 0 5 0 1
39 22 3 16 3 19 1 2
40 4 1 3 0 4 0 0
41 4 2 2 0 4 0 0
42 13 1 10 2 9 2 2
43 3 1 2 0 3 0 0
44 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
45 20 3 14 3 14 2 4
46 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
47 15 1 13 1 12 1 2
48 26 5 19 2 20 2 4
49 13 3 10 0 9 1 3
50 8 3 5 0 6 2 0
51 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
 No. of gaur
Sl sighted in Sub Calf/
Male Female Unclassified Adult
no each Adult Juvenile
occasion
52 2 0 2 0 2 0 0
53 3 0 3 0 2 1 0
54 8 2 5 1 6 2 0
55 55 9 42 4 42 5 8
56 37 4 28 5 26 8 3
57 63 8 51 4 49 6 8
58 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
59 45 5 38 2 39 2 4
60 19 3 14 2 10 5 4
61 4 1 3 0 4 0 0
62 19 5 11 3 12 4 3
63 2 0 2 0 2 0 0
64 17 3 12 2 12 3 2
65 11 1 9 1 8 3 0
66 28 6 17 5 19 4 5
67 12 6 4 2 9 3 0
68 20 4 12 4 12 6 2
69 15 5 8 2 8 5 2
70 12 3 6 3 6 3 3
71 39 11 23 5 20 10 9
72 17 9 5 3 11 4 2
73 5 1 2 2 2 1 2
74 25 9 12 4 15 6 4
75 27 7 17 3 17 5 5
76 23 6 13 4 13 6 4
77 34 13 19 2 19 11 4
78 3 1 2 0 1 1 1
Tot
1029 224 688 117 707 181 141
al

22
 Map 10. The location of the gaur sightings across the study area.

3.7. Discussion
Estimation of gaur population densities require a huge effort, as the species mostly occurs in
low-density and in dense forested habitats (Ahrestani&Karanth 2014). Information on population
status from North Bengal are limited. During this study a landscape-wide population estimation
exercise was undertaken to understand the current population status. Presently, in the entire
landscape approximately a population of 3258 gaurs were estimated based on the count-data
using Distance Sampling technique. The Distance sampling technique is a robust sampling
method that attempts to generate reliable population density estimates (Jathanna et al. 2003).
Within the distance sampling framework, the population density is estimated using the count data
(number of animals detected during the survey from line transect), detection probability and the
proportion of area sampled. Based on these three parameters, the population density is computed
using DISTANCE software. The information of population density and the total area is then
used to extrapolate the data to compute the population abundance (population size).
23
This robust technique has been applied to derive the population abundance of gaur in entire
northern West Bengal landscape, which is statistically and biologically a robust method of
estimation (Jathanna et al. 2003). This forms a reliable estimate of gaur population in the study
area. The estimated sex ratio in northern West Bengal indicated a female-biased population,
which is true for most of the herbivore population across Asia. Our results indicated that the
study area harbours a good gaur population. Reportedly, the gaurs in this region are known to
occur along the Himalayan foothills and bhabar areas and move down to the plains regularly
(Choudhury 2002).

24
 Chapter IV: Habitat Use Pattern

4.1. Introduction
Habitat is the sum of specific resources that are needed by an organism and relates the presence
of a species, population or individual to an area’s physical and biological characteristics (Hall et
al. 1997). Understanding the species-habitat relationship is of fundamental importance to
implement conservation management. We studied the habitat utilisation pattern of gaurs in
northern West Bengal so as to understand which habitats are selected over others. This provides
vital information about the nature of the species, and how they meet their requirements for
survival (Manly et al.2002), which in turn aids in making informed conservation decisions.

Broadly, the gaurs inhabit the forested habitats including the evergreen, semievergreen, moist
deciduous and dry deciduous forests (Schaller 1967). In this study, we aimed at understanding
the gaur habitat use pattern at finer scale of habitat categories. For this study we categorised the
broad forested habitats and its surroundings into the following habitat categories based on land
cover type – deciduous forest, riverine forest, mixed vegetation, Sal plantation, Teak plantation,
Semi evergreen forest, grasslands, tea gardens and agriculture land.

4.2. Methods

To understand the habitat-use pattern by gaurs sampling was conducted in nine different habitat
types in the study area (Table 6). Study design as described by Thomas & Taylor (1990) was
used where surveys were conducted to record the relative number of animals into each habitat
category by using line transects and the availability of these habitat categories was measured by
sampling random plots along the line transects. In the transect line the habitat structure and
quality was assessed by sampling vegetation plots of 10m x 10m for tress, and 5m x 5m quadrats
for shrubs and herbs at regular interval of 500 m. A total of 728 plots were sampled along the
262 line transects across the study area. The habitat use was measured by the proportion of gaur
in each habitat category.

25
4.2.1 Data analysis

A chi-squared test was performed to determine whether the habitat use by the gaurs was random
and differ significantly among different habitat types. During the analysis, the habitat categories,
where the expected frequencies were less than five, were dropped as these units were rarely
selected (Manly et al. 2002). Since, the habitat-use by gaur differed significantly among the
habitat types (χ2= 519. 697, df=7, P<0.001), the habitat preference was calculated using Manly’s
standardised preference index, Bi (Manly et al. 2002). The index is based on the selection ratio
𝑤𝑖,𝑠 which is the proportional use of each resource divided by the proportional availability.

𝑤𝑖,𝑠 = 𝑜𝑖,𝑠 /𝜋𝑖

Where, 𝑜𝑖,𝑠 = Proportion of the numbers of individuals of species recorded in the habitat units in
category i.
And 𝜋𝑖 = Proportion of the habitats, i among all the habitats sampled.

First, the 𝑤𝑖,𝑠 was calculated and then the preference index was computed. The preference index
was standardised using Manly’s standardised equation:

𝑤𝑖,𝑠
Bi = 𝐻
∑𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖,𝑠
Where, H= number of resource habitats units.

In this preference index if the value is greater than 1, the habitat is considered to be preferred by
the species, and if the value is less than 1 the habitat is not used by the species.
26
The value around 1 suggests that the habitat is used in proportion to its availability. The most
preferred habitats are considered as the key habitats for the species. The data were analysed in
program R (R Core Team 2019) using the package adehabitatHS (Calenge 2011).

Map 11. The location of the vegetation survey plots on the line transects.

4.3. Results

During the survey we recorded a total of 1029 gaurs across the study area. The gaurs were found
most abundantly in the semievergreen forests, followed by mixed forests and deciduous forests
respectively (Fig. 5). To determine the strength of habitat preference for gaurs, Manly’s
preference index was used. The most preferred habitats of gaurs in the study area were
semievergreen forests, followed by tea gardens (Fig. 6). The semievergreen forest was used more
than its availability, the mixed forests and grasslands were used in proportion to its availability,
while the other habitat types were used less than its availability (Fig 7).
27
The tea gardens close to the forest lands are often used as refuge by the gaurs. We found that the
gaurs use the relatively undisturbed areas of forest in the landscape.

Table 6. The sighting records of gaurs in different habitat types

Number of
Sighting # of transects
Habitat type instances in # of sampled in No. of vegetation
each animals each habitat plots surveyed in
habitat sighted type each habitat type
Deciduous
10
Forest 145 51 134
Riverine
9
forest 112 57 149
Mixed forest 12 155 43 118
Sal plantation 6 63 28 76
Teak
5
Plantation 49 19 79
Semi
Evergreen 15
forest 243 29 58
Grasslands 9 112 31 87
Tea gardens 7 94 4 27
Agriculture
5
land 56 0 0
Total 78 1029 262 728

Agriculture land
Tea gardens
Grasslands
Semi Evergreen forest
Teak Plantation
Sal plantation
Mixed forest
Riverine forest
Deciduous Forest
0 50 100 150 200 250

# of animal Number of Sighting instances

Figure 5. Number of direct sighting records of gaurs in different habitat types.

28
 Figure 6. The gaurs have a preference for semi evergreen forests in the study area.

Figure 7.The proportion of habitat types used by gaurs versus the availability of each habitat
type.

4.4. Discussion
Our study findings indicate that gaurs are forest dwelling species that are known to occur in a
wide range of forest types. The habitat use study at finer scales of habitat categories in the study
area indicated that the semievergreen forests, mixed forests and grasslands are important for
survival of the gaurs in the landscape. The preference for these habitat types may be due to

29
availability of forage and less anthropogenic disturbances.

A study by Kumar (2010) inferred that the spatial abundance of gaurs is determined by factors
such as protection effectiveness and site-level human disturbance.

During this study we found that tea gardens are also preferred by gaurs. This may be due to
artefact of sampling. The research team sighted gaurs in the tea gardens quite often, and this may
not reflect the true habitat preference. To this end, we suggest that while developing conservation
management plan, this should be taken into account. The gaurs prefer forested areas, with
availability of forage and minimum disturbances.

30
 Chapter V: Feeding Habit

5.1. Introduction

The most important and consistent activity determining animal survival, health, and mobility is
feeding (Haleem & Ilyas 2018). Understanding the feeding habit is a primary aspect of
conserving any large mammals. The gaur is a major herbivore in Indian sub-continent. Despite
being a mega herbivore ecological studies on gaurs are limited. A few studies undertaken on gaur
feeding ecology infers that gaur are both grazers and browsers (Ahrestani et al. 2012, Sankar et
al. 2013, Haleem & Ilyas2018). In the present study we identified the plant species that are
consumed by gaurs in our study area and attempted to understand the preference of forage
species based on direct observations.

5.2. Methods

We followed direct observation technique to identify the plant species eaten by gaur. Any
opportunistic encounter with gaur in the forest was considered to be one sample. We observed
gaurs through binoculars and recorded the forage items that the animals were feeding on during
the observation bout. Once the gaur herd moved away from the feeding site, we tried to identify
the plant species either in the field directly or took photographs for identifying them by plant
taxonomists.

5.2.1. Data analysis

Most of the plant species were identified in field by our team as well as the accompanying staff
from forest department. Most of the accompanying forest staff were familiar with the local name
of the plants. The unidentified plants were later identified with the guidance from expert plant
taxonomists at Aaranyak.

We adopted plot sampling method for abundance estimation of the fodder plants. We sampled
728 plots of 10m x 10m in 262 randomly placed transects across the study site (as mentioned in
the Chapter-IV). We estimated the abundance of species based on the presence of the particular
species in the surveyed plots.
31
5.3. Results

The gaurs in our study area were found to feed on 32 species of plants, belonging to 16 families
(Table 7 and Fig. 9). Various plant parts such as fruits, leaves, bark and young shoots were
recorded as dietary items of gaur during the study period. The most preferred dietary type was
however leaves and grasses (70%). Based on their availability in our vegetation survey plots, we
assessed their abundance. The most abundant fodder species recorded was Gmelina arborea
(24%) followed by Dillenia indica (18%). Gaur tend to feed on any plants that are nutritious only
during certain seasons.

Table 7. The list of identified fodder plants of gaur in the study area

Sl Parts Abundan Preferen

Species Name Type Family
no eaten ce ce
1 Bauhinia racemosa T Fabaceae L, F 18% H
2 Butea monosperma T Fabaceae L 8% H
3 Cassia fistula T Fabaceae L, F 4% H
4 Dilleniapentagyna T Dilleniaceae F 15% H
5 Gmelina arborea T Lamiaceae L 24% H
6 Grewia tiliaefolia T Tiliaceae L, F 4% M
7 Dillenia indica L. T Dilleniaceae F 18% H
8 Albizzia procera T Mimosaceae B 8% M
9 Sterculia villosa T Sterculiaceae B 16% M
Dipterocarpac
10 Shorearobusta T L, B 43% H
eae
11 Terminalia alata T Combretaceae L 8% L
12 Dalbergia latifolia T Fabaceae L, F 8% L
13 Calicarpalanata T Lamiaceae F, L 2% L
14 Strobilanthes sp. S Acanthaceae L, F 5% L
15 Grewia abutifolia S Tiliaceae L, F Not found M
16 Helicteresisora S Malvaceae L, F 2% M
17 Spermacoce sp. H Rubiaceae L, F, S 5% M
18 Desmodiumtriflorum H Fabaceae L, F, S 4% L
19 Mimosa pudica L. H Mimosaceae E 14% M
Sl Parts Abundan Preferen
Species Name Type Family
no eaten ce ce
20 Musa velutina H Musaceae E 4% M
21 Alpinia allughas H Zingiberaceae E 11% H
22 Urena lobata H Malvaceae L, F 8% H
23 Bambusaarundinacea G Gramineae E 17% M
24 Cynodondactylon G Poaceae E 5% H
25 Cyperus rotundus G Cyperaceae E 3% H
26 Digitaria sp. G Poaceae E Not found H
Dendrocalamus
27 G Poaceae E 12% H
strictus
28 Phragmites karka G Poaceae E 21% H
Narenga
29 G Poaceae E 25% M
porphyrocoma
30 Thysanolaena maxima G Poaceae E 12% H
31 Saccharum procerum G Poaceae E 18% H
Saccharum
32 G Poaceae E 27% H
spontaneum

12

10

0
Tree Herb Shrub Grass

Figure 8. The number of fodder plant species of gaurs recorded in study area.

33
 Tiliaceae
Rubiaceae
Musaceae
Malvaceae
Gramineae
Dipterocarpaceae
Cyperaceae
Acanthaceae
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 9. The number of species in each family.

5.4. Discussion
Our study has identified at least 32 species of plants that are eaten by gaurs in the study area. Our
findings are in line with previous studies that reported gaurs to be generalist feeders, which are
known to be both grazers and browsers (Sankar et al. 2013). The food preference of gaurs
indicates the importance of natural forest habitats for their long-term conservation. Based on the
preference level, management may consider planting of fodder plants in specific areas.

34
 Chapter VI: Human-Gaur Conflict

6.1. Introduction

Human-Gaur conflict (HGC) in the North Bengal landscape is on the rise. The reports of gaur
raiding crops and straying out of the forest areas are becoming very common in recent times. As
the gaur population is increasing in the forests of North Bengal, these interactions with human
are to be effectively managed. The reason for the increase of gaur population is perhaps the
absence (or low presence) of large predators like tigers. This can lead to sudden increase in the
population but in the long run this effect may increase intra-species competition for food and
shelter resulting in decline in population numbers. Forest department censuses estimated the gaur
population at 2000 individuals in 2010 and 4000 Gaurs in 2012 (Chakraborty 2015). Our result
also indicated a population of approximately 4000 gaurs in the entire landscape. Most of the gaur
habitats in North Bengal is fragmented (Choudhury 2002), which often leads to confrontation
with local people as they try to move between patches.

During 2011-2012, a total of 11 gaur straying incidents occurred in North Bengal, of which
seven gaurs were killed by local people (Bhattacharyya &Padhy 2013). During 2012, one gaur
died because of a train hit in Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary.

6.2. Methods

To assess the magnitude of human-gaur conflict, data were collected on all known conflict
incidents which included crop-raiding, human deaths and injuries from October 2016 to June
2019. Our team visited each conflict incident site that was reported during the study period for
ground truthing. For each conflict incident data on gaur age-sex class (as far as possible), time of
incident, GPS location and type of conflict (e.g. crop-raid, human deaths/injuries etc) were
recorded from complainants or secondary sources at the site of occurrence using a standardised
reporting form (Hoare 1999). The UTM coordinates of each incident were imported into the Arc
GIS 9.3 and ERDAS Imagine 9.1 software package for processing prior to analysis.

35
 Map 12. Human-gaur conflict locations across the landscape.

6.3. Results

During the study period a total of 90 conflict incidents (n=90) were recorded (Fig 10). This
included 57 incidents of crop-damage or straying, 21 incidents of physical injury, 8 incidents of
gaur death and 4 human death incidents. Most of the incidents involved single male gaur.

36
 Straying/Crop-Raiding

Physical Injury

Gaur Death

Human Death

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 10. The number of human-gaur conflictincidents during the study period.

Besides, secondary information from the Forest Department were collected (Table 8 and Fig 10)
from 2012 to 2018 for various Forest Divisions (Table 8 and Fig 10). While sorting andanalysing
the data we realised that the department did not have a standard data collection format as it
varied among different divisions. A standard format for collating human-gaur conflict incidents
will be effective for later use.

37
Table 8.Human gaur conflict incidents collected across different Forest Divisions (Source:
Forest Department)

Cases of
Gaur Crop
Division Straying Death Damage Human Death Human injury
BTR West 7 8 - - 3
BTR East 6 2 - - 1
Jalpaiguri 21 15 4 3
Kurseong 0 - -
Baikunthapur - 0 - - -
Gorumara 13 28 7 2 6
Jaldapara 9 32 6 4 13
Coachbehar 19 9 2 1 9
Darjeeling - - - - -
Kalimpong - - - - -
Total 75 94 19 7 35

0
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Human Death Human Injury

Figure 11. Status of human deaths and injuries by gaurs in Jaldapara during 2012-2018 (Source:
Forest Department).

38
We recorded two train accidents resulting in the death of three gaurs since 2012 in Chapramari
WLS. The secondary data and informal interviews with the villagers showed that the rate of gaur
straying out of the forested area and direct encounter of gaurs with the humans were more
common form of incidents as compared to crop raids.

6.4. Discussion

Investigation of patterns of human-gaur conflict indicated that most of the incidents comprise of
gaur stray out. As evident from the Map (13), that gaur habitat is highly fragmented and the
animals are confined in smaller habitat patches. From our study we infer that the gaurs,while
moving between forest patches, use the human-use areas. This kind of confrontation can often
lead to conflict.

Map 13. Stray-out areas of gaurs in the landscape during the study period.

39
 Chapter VII: Carrying Capacity

7.1. Carrying capacity of North Bengal for Gaur

The carrying capacity of an area depends on factors such as availability of resources. Estimating
carrying capacity of any wild species is theoretically possible, while it needs long-term data on
species’ population ecology, resource needs and other external factors. Carrying capacity is
defined as “The maximum number of animals which can be sustained in a given ecosystem
through the least favourable environmental conditions that occur within a stated interval of time
without deterioration of the ecosystem and without impairing the quality of the animals”
Edwards and Foyle (1955).

To study carrying capacity the first criteria considered is the ability of the habitat to provide food
for the support of the inhabiting population. In case of herbivores this is determined by
estimating the primary productivity of the vegetation. In this study, we could not estimate the
productivity of fodder species for our study area. Here, we have attempted to provide an estimate
of gaur carrying capacity in the landscape by “borrowing” information from available literature,
which is ideally the mean productivity of forest and grasslands. We have considered the
productivity to be 200 ton/km2. Hence, for the total habitat area available for gaurs in our study
area (approximately 1600 km2, including protected and non-protected areas), the amount of mean
productivity will be 3,20,000 tonnes of fodders. For calculating the carrying capacity, we have
removed half of these amount for regeneration, which is equivalent to 160000 ton (Madugundu
et al. 2008). Of these, we considered half of the amount is used by elephants (50%), and 25 % by
other herbivores including deer and cattle. Therefore, the unused productivity for gaurs remained
is 40,000 tonnes of fodder. The yearly requirement for gaur is considered to be 7.3 tonnes/gaur
(Ramachandran et al. 1986). Hence, we can roughly calculate the carrying capacity of North
Bengal landscape for Gaur as

Unused biomass = Carrying capacity

Yearly requirement of gaur

40000/7.3 = 5479 gaur individuals

40
This analysis is a complete theoretical analysis based on limited available literature on carrying
capacity estimation of wild herbivores, and this may only be taken as a speculation.The result
indicates that the present population of gaur in North Bengal is below the carrying capacity of
the landscape. The reported sporadic straying of Gaurs in human use areas does not appear to be
a result of the current population size.

41
 Chapter VIII: Management Recommendations

The gaur management and conservation planning can be developed with the following key points
of recommendations in North Bengal. For management of the gaur population in North Bengal,
we recommend a few practical strategies to be implemented by the forest department.

Capacity building of JFMC and FPC members

 All JFMCs and FPCs should be empowered to manage straying gaurs. Capacity building
training should be organised for the members at a regular interval to train and create alert
network for gaur stray.
 The presently functional Wildlife squad in Buxa TR, KurseongDivision (Bagdogra,
Sukna, Belacoba, Ramsai, Malbazar, Khunia, Madarihat) should be accompanied by an
educational team to collect data and also assist in management local people during field
patrolling.
 These Wildlife squads should be more well equipped with modern tools like GPS and
Walk-Talkie sets to be able to track any stray cases.

Building stewardship with Management of Tea gardens: The tea gardens are major refuge for
gaurs as our results infer. We recommend that the management authorities should take tea garden
authorities as part of conservation planning and may involve the managers of some of these tea
gardens in regular meetings to garner their proactive support and create a sense of stewardship.

There are few small/medium sized tea gardens that not- functional in North Bengal. Government
can take over those abandoned tea garden lands and can be used for restoration of gaur habitats
with fodder plants.

Army cantonment

 The army cantonments sometime overlap with gaur habitats and hence meetings with
Army should be taken-up to discuss issues on fencing by army and the defence land at
Rohini.
42
  The department may regularly visit and monitor any gaur herds inside the army
cantonments.
 Regular meeting should be held with army officials (not below the rank of Commanding
officer and CF from Forest Department)

Habitat management

 The removal of alien invasive plants should be a priority in management for all the
protected areas. If existing habitats in North Bengal (NP, WLS and Reserved Forests) are
managed scientifically the same habitat may provide needed natural feed to gaurs.
 More research on scientific intervention to assist natural regeneration of gaur palatable
growth to be conducted.
 The preferred fodder plants (as per our results) should be promoted in infilling and
supplement.

Compensation
 One of the government initiatives to mitigate human-gaur conflict is providing
compensation (ex-gratia) to the conflict victims. The compensation schemes are aimed to
alleviate the losses suffered by the victims. However, the affected people opined that the
amount received by them does not suffice and they are not satisfied by the process in
many areas and also with the compensation amount.
 The process of compensation or ex-gratia have to be expedited. We suggest of providing
support to the local communities in form of livelihood diversification.

Awareness

 Village level awareness initiatives should be conducted regularly.

 The department may engage local NGOs and panchayat members as these members have
mass base which need to be used for positive outcome. Close relations with village
headman are crucial to address emergency crisis in the villages that could arise from gaur
straying cases.

43
Illegal mining

 The illegal mining especially sand mining using crusher in the rivers should be either
stopped or regulated.
 The following chart shows which sites should be stopped immediately –

Mechi (crusher at
Rakamjote Tarabari), Basra
Should be stopped river upstream, Diana
urgently (North and Central), Chel,
Leesh, Ghish, Murti, Jaynti
(Bhuttiabasti), Sankosh

Mahananda, Teesta
Can be regulated upstream, Sukhani (Titi),
Rydak

44
References

Altmann, J. (1974). Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods. Behaviour. Vol. 49,
No. 3/4 (1974), pp. 227-267.

Ahrestani, F.S., Heitkonig, I.M.A. &Prins, H.H.T. (2012). Diets & habitat-niche relationships
with an assemblage of large herbivores in a seasonal tropical forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology,
8, 385-394.

Ahrestani, F. &Karanth, K. U. (2014). Gaur Bos gaurus. In: Melletti, M. & Burton, J. (ed.),
Ecology, Evolution and Behavior of Wild Cattle: Implications for Conservation, Cambridge
University Press.

Bhattacharyya, S., Choudhury, A.U. & Biswas, G.G. (1997) A Collaborative Study on Gaurs
(Bos gaurus H. Smith) in North Bengal, West Bengal, India. WWF-India Eastern Region,
Calcutta, India.

Bhattacharyya, M.K. &Padhy P.K. “Forest and Wildlife Scenarios of Northern West Bengal,
India: A Review.” International Research Journal of Biological Sciences 2, no.7 (July 2013):
2278-3202.

Caughley, G. (1977) Analysis of vertebrate populations. John Wiley and Sons, London

Chakraborty, S (2015). Human-Animal Conflicts in Northern West Bengal: Losses on both sides.
International Journal of Pure Applied Bioscience3 (3): 35-44.

Choudhury, A. (2002). Distribution and conservation of the Gaur Bos gaurus in the Indian
Subcontinent. Mammal Review, 32: 199-226.

Chetri, M. (2006). Diet Analysis of Gaur, Bos gaurus gaurus (Smith, 1827) by Micro-
Histological Analysis of Fecal Samples in Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Our Nature, 4: 20-28.

Duckworth, J.W., Sankar, K., Williams, A.C., Samba Kumar, N. & Timmins, R.J. 2016. Bos
gaurus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T2891A46363646.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T2891A46363646.en. Downloaded on 13
July 2020.

Geist, V (1974). On the Relationship of Social Evolution and Ecology in Ungulates. AMER.
ZOOL., 14:205-220

Hallem, A. & Ilyas, O. (2018). Food and Feeding Habits of Gaur (Bos gaurus) in Highlands of
Central India: A Case Study at Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh (India). Zoological
Science, 35: 57-67.

45
Jarman, J. P. (1974). The social organisation of Antelopes in relation to their ecology. Behaviour,
48, pp- 212-267.

Jathanna, D., Karanth, K.U. &Johnsingh, A.J.T. (2003). Estimation of large herbivore densities
in the tropical forests of southern India using distance sampling. Journal of Zoology261, 285–
290. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836903004278.

Karanth, K. U. & Nichols, J. D. (2000). Ecological Status and Conservation of Tigers in India.
Final Technical Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service - Division of International Conservation
and Wildlife Conservation Society. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India.

Karanth, K. U., & Kumar, N.S. (2001). As good as it gets: Large herbivore densities in south
Asian forests. Pages 489-492 in Ganeshaiah, K. N., R. Uma Shaanker, and K. S. Bawa (eds).
Tropical Ecosystems: Structure, Diversity and Human Welfare. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Tropical Ecosystems, Oxford-IBH, New Delhi, India.

Karanth, K. U., & Kumar, N.S. (2005). Distribution and dynamics of tiger and prey populations
in Maharashtra, India. Final Technical Report. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India.

Karanth, K. U., Kumar, N. S., Gopalaswamy, A. M. & Srinivas, V. (2008). Distribution and
dynamics of tiger and prey populations in Karnataka. Final Technical Report. Wildlife
Conservation Society – India Program, Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India.

Karanth, K. K., Nichols, J. D., Karanth, K. U., Hines, J. E. & Christensen, N. L. (2010). The
shrinking Ark: Patterns of large mammal extinctions in India. Proceedings of the Royal Society-
Biological Sciences, 227: 1971-1979.

Kumar, S.N. (2010). Assessment of distribution and abundance of ungulate prey using spatial
models in Nagarahole and Bandipur Tiger Reserves of India. PhD Thesis submitted to Manipal
University. 202 pp.

Madugundu, R., Khalid, A., Gaadi, A., Tola, E., Ahmed, G. & Jha, C. S. (2008). Estimation of
gross primary production of irrigated maize using Landsat-8 imagery and Eddy Covariance data
(DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.10.003)

Ramchandran, K.K., Vijaykumaran Nair, P. &Easa, P.S. 1986. Ecology of larger mammmals of
Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 83(3): 505-524.
Ramesh, T., Shankar, K., Qureshi, Q., Kalle, R. (2012). Group Size and Population Structure of
Megaherbivores (Gaur Bos gaurus and Asian Elephant Elephas maximus) in a Deciduous Habitat
of Western Ghats, India. Mammal Study, 37(1):47–54

Rodman, P. S. (1981). Inclusive Fitness and Group Size with a Reconsideration of Group Sizes
in Lions and Wolves. The American Naturalist. Vol. 118, No. 2 (Aug., 1981), pp. 275-283

46
Sankar, K., Pabla, H. S. Patil, C. K., Nigam, P., Qureshi, Q., Navaneethan, B., Manjreakar, M.,
Virkar, P. S. & Mondal, K. (2013). Home range, habitat use and food habits of re-introduced
gaur (Bos gaurus gaurus) in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, Central India. Tropical Conservation
Science, 6 :50-69.
Schaller, G.B. (1967). The Deer and the Tiger. A Study of Wildlife in India. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, USA and London, UK.
Stearns, C. S. (1992). The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford University Press, London xii +
249 pp.
Thomas, D. & Taylor E. (1990). Study designs and tests for comparing resource use and
availability. Journal of Wildlife Management, 54, 322-30.

47
PHOTOS FROM FIELD

48
49